Is There Benefit from Stenting on Cognitive Function in Intracranial Atherosclerosis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Revascularization of stenotic cerebral arteries is hypothesized to improve cognition by increasing cerebral perfusion. AIMS: We compared cognition impairment among patients treated with percutaneous angioplasty and stenting (PTAS) and aggressive medical management (AMM) versus AMM alone in the Stenting versus Aggressive Medical Therapy for Intracranial Arterial Stenosis (SAMMPRIS) Trial. METHODS: In SAMMPRIS, 451 patients with recent transient ischemic attack or stroke attributed to 70-99% intracranial stenosis were randomized to PTAS plus AMM or AMM alone. Patients who had stroke as the qualifying event with National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale indicating aphasia or neglect were excluded from these analyses. Patients with a cerebrovascular event (ischemic stroke, cerebral infarct with temporary signs or intracranial hemorrhage) during follow-up were excluded from follow-up visit analyses. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score was used to assess cognition impairment at baseline, 4 months, 12 months and closeout. Cognitive impairment was defined as MoCA <26. Mean MoCA scores and the percentage of patients with cognitive impairment were compared between treatment groups at each time point using t tests and chi-square tests. Differences in MoCA mean at baseline and follow-up time points were compared using mixed model repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer tests. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the treatment groups for mean MoCA at any time point. Mean MoCA scores improved in both groups. The percentage of patients with cognitive impairment in the AMM versus PTAS groups was not significantly different at any time point. CONCLUSIONS: Revascularization with PTAS showed no improvement in cognitive impairment over AMM alone among patients who did not have recurrent cerebrovascular events during follow-up.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".