Appropriate management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With modern intensive medical therapy, the annual risk of ipsilateral stroke in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) is now down to ∼0.5%. Despite this, there is a widespread practice of routine intervention in ACS with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and stenting (CAS). This is being justified on the basis of much higher risks with medical therapy in trials conducted decades ago, compared with lower risks of intervention in recent trials with no medical arm. Such extrapolations are invalid. Although recent trials have shown that after subtracting periprocedural risks the outcomes with CEA and CAS are now comparable to medical therapy, the periprocedural risks still far outweigh the risks with medical therapy. In the asymptomatic carotid trial (ACT) 1 trial, the 30-day risk of stroke or death was 2.9% with CAS and 1.7% with CEA. In the CREST trial, the 30-day risk of stroke or death among asymptomatic patients was 2.5% for stenting and 1.4% for endarterectomy. Thus, intensive medical therapy is much safer than either CAS or CEA. The only patients with ACS who should receive intervention are those who can be identified as being at high risk. The best validated method is transcranial Doppler embolus detection. Other approaches in development for identifying vulnerable plaques include intraplaque haemorrhage on MRI, ulceration and plaque lucency on ultrasound, and plaque inflammation on positron emission tomography/CT. Intensive medical therapy for ACS includes smoking cessation, a Mediterranean diet, effective blood pressure control, antiplatelet therapy, intensive lipid-lowering therapy and treatment with B vitamins (with methylcobalamin instead of cyanocobalamin), particularly in patients with metabolic B12 deficiency. A new strategy called ‘treating arteries instead of risk factors’, based on measurement of carotid plaque volume, is promising but requires validation in randomised trials.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".