MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2616642417 · doi:10.1161/str.46.suppl_1.wp382

Abstract W P382: Cognitive Outcome in SAMMPRIS: Medical Therapy vs. Stenting

2015· article· en· W2616642417 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alison Smock, Tanya N. Turan, George Cotsonis, Michael Lynn, Colin P. Derdeyn, David Fiorella, L. Scott Janis, Bethany F Lane, Jean Montgomery, Marc I. Chimowitz

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentAngioplastyStroke (engine)Internal medicineCardiologyRevascularizationCognitionSurgeryCognitive impairmentPsychiatryMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: It has been hypothesized that revascularization of stenotic cerebral arteries may improve cognitive outcome by increasing cerebral perfusion. We sought to compare cognitive outcome in patients treated with percutaneous angioplasty and stenting (PTAS) and aggressive medical management (AMM) vs. AMM alone in the SAMMPRIS Trial. Methods: In SAMMPRIS, 451 patients with recent TIA or stroke attributed to 70%-99% intracranial stenosis were randomized to PTAS plus AMM or AMM alone. Patients with stroke as the qualifying event who had a NIHSS indicating aphasia or neglect were excluded from these analyses. Patients with any ischemic stroke, cerebral infarct with temporary signs (CITS), or ICH during follow-up were excluded from subsequent follow-up visit analyses. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score was used to assess cognition at baseline, 4 months, 12 months, and closeout (mean 3.05 years in AMM group and 3.12 years in PTAS group). 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 means from baseline to follow-up time points were compared using mixed model repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer tests. Results: As shown in the Figure, there were no significant differences between the treatment groups for mean MoCA at any time point. There were significant improvements in mean MoCA from baseline to 4 months, 12 months, and closeout in both groups. The percentage of patients with cognitive impairment in the AMM vs. PTAS groups were not significantly different at baseline (53 vs. 56%), 4 months (38 vs. 44%), 12 months (42 vs. 40%), and closeout (43 vs. 39%). Conclusions: Revascularization did not provide any additional cognitive benefit over AMM alone in SAMMPRIS even after excluding patients who had cerebral infarction or ICH 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designRandomized trial
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases→French-language works237,207→