MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2422166998 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2016.202

P.100 Carotid stent fracture post balloon angioplasty for unilateral recurrent ICA stenosis with pre-existing occlusion of contralateral ICA and literature review

2016· article· en· W2422166998 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
AH Naeem, Ghaya Al-Rumaihi, Melfort Boulton

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStenosisInternal carotid arteryAngioplastyStentRadiologyBalloonOcclusionCarotid stentingRevascularizationSurgeryCardiologyCarotid endarterectomyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Closed cell carotid stent fracture is rare. From our literature review, we present the first reported case in English literature of a carotid stent fracture post angioplasty for an in-stent stenosis. Methods: Case Report Results: 72-year-old male underwent left carotid stenting for symptomatic ulcerated stenosis of the proximal aspect of left ICA (71% stenosis with post-stenting 55% residual stenosis). His right ICA and right vertebral artery were occluded. 2 months later, he presented with TIA’s and severe in-stent stenosis in the proximal left ICA measuring 1 mm in diameter. Satisfactory balloon (5×40 mm) angioplasty was done with residual stenosis measuring 2.5 mm in diameter. 8 months later he presented with symptoms of compromised cerebral perfusion. Workup showed a stent fracture distally at the site of severe ICA stenosis secondary to atherosclerotic calcified plaque causing blood flow changes. His PSV (peak systolic velocity) in the left ICA was 383 m/s. As such he underwent left ICA re-stenting for symptomatic severe left ICA stenosis of 70% with 40% residual stenosis following stent deployment. Conclusions: Carotid stent fracture post balloon angioplasty for recurrent stenosis is rare but of paramount importance. We demonstrate re-stenting as a viable treatment modality when patient profile is not amenable to a surgical revascularization procedure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases→French-language works237,207→