Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent trials, after deducting the risks in the 30-day periprocedural period, the long-term risk of stroke or death was similar with carotid stenting (CAS) and endarterectomy (CEA) for asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) - approximately 0.5% per year. These findings may exacerbate the problem of inappropriate routine intervention in ACS, being justified on the basis of an invalid comparison of the risks in the medical arms of clinical trials conducted decades ago (˜ 2% per year) to the risks in modern trials of CAS vs. CEA with no medical arm. Intervention is regarded as justified if it can be carried out with a risk below 3%. The annual risk of ipsilateral stroke or death in ACS with intensive medical therapy is now ˜ 0.5% - similar to the long-term risk after the periprocedural period in recent trials of intervention. However, periprocedural risk was ˜ 3% for CAS and 1.7% for CEA. Thus with modern CAS and CEA, the risk remains much higher than with modern medical therapy, even with careful vetting of the surgeons and interventionalists. In real world practice, documented in registries, the risks are much higher. National differences - 90% of carotid intervention for ACS in the US vs. 0% in Denmark - bring into question the advisability and ethics of routine intervention. A moratorium on routine intervention for ACS should be respected except in ongoing randomized trials comparing CAS, CEA and modern intensive medical therapy. Patients with high-risk ACS can be identified for appropriate intervention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".