Transcranial Doppler Emboli Identifies Asymptomatic Carotid Patients at High Stroke Risk: Why This Technique Should be Used More Widely
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With modern intensive medical therapy, the annual risk of ipsilateral stroke in asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) is now ∼0.5%. Therefore, even the relative low risks reported from the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) trial do not justify routine intervention in most (90%) of the patients with ACS. It is therefore necessary to identify the ∼10% to15% of patients with ACS who have a stroke risk high enough to justify intervention. Transcranial Doppler (TCD) embolus detection has been shown in 2 prospective studies (one with 468 patients and the other with 467 patients) to identify patients at high risk and distinguish them from those who would be better served by medical therapy. There is no valid reason why carotid intervention should be carried out in ACS without first identifying that the patient's risk of stroke is higher than the risk of intervention. The best validated way to do this is by TCD embolus detection, and the cost of TCD equipment and training is approximately the same as the cost of 2 carotid stenting procedures in the United States. This procedure should be used more widely.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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 it