Attitudes of Canadian and U.S. Neurologists Regarding Carotid Endarterectomy for Asymptomatic Stenosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The American Heart Association carotid endarterectomy (CE) guidelines endorse CE for asymptomatic carotid stenosis if the procedure can be performed with low morbidity. However, the Canadian Stroke Consortium has published a consensus against CE for asymptomatic stenosis. The views of practicing neurologists in the two countries on this subject are unclear. METHODS: A survey was undertaken of 270 neurologists from either Florida or Indiana and 180 neurologists from either Ontario or Quebec. RESULTS: The survey was returned by 36% of neurologists. Both Florida (65%) and Indiana neurologists (35%) were significantly more likely than Canadian neurologists (11%) to sometimes/often refer patients for surgery(p<0.001). Neurologists from Florida relied more on noninvasive methods of carotid stenosis assessment (36%) than Canadian neurologists (12%, p=0.003), who preferred angiography. Neurologists from Florida more often cited medicolegal concerns as a reason for referring patients for surgery (27%), compared to Canadian neurologists (3%, p=0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Practices pertaining to carotid stenosis evaluation and management differ both regionally and by country. Canadian neurologists refer fewer asymptomatic patients for CE and rely more on angiography as a preoperative diagnostic tool. The potential of medicolegal liability is a greater force in clinical decision-making for certain U.S. neurologists, compared to their Canadian counterparts. These differences may partly explain the variations in CE utilization in the two countries.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".