Abstract TP112: Mechanism of Recurrent Stroke in Patients with Atherosclerotic Vertebrobasilar Disease in Relation to Hemodynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Patients with symptomatic atherosclerotic vertebrobasilar disease are at high risk for recurrent stroke and we have demonstrated that distal flow status is independently associated with this risk. Our aim was to assess the mechanism of recurrent strokes in these patients related to their distal flow status. Methods: Patients with symptomatic atherosclerotic vertebrobasilar disease were enrolled in a prospective longitudinal cohort study (VERiTAS) with a median follow-up of 23 months. Large-vessel flow in the posterior circulation distal to the stenosis and/or occlusion was measured on quantitative MR angiography and dichotomized into normal or low flow. Three observers, who were blinded to the distal flow status, independently reviewed the imaging done at the time of the recurrent stroke to classify the most likely stroke mechanism. Results: Ten out of 72 enrolled patients had a recurrent stroke in the posterior circulation. Four patients were determined to have embolic infarcts, four patients had infarcts caused by plaques that occluded a branch or perforating artery (junctional plaques), and two patients had imaging that suggested hemodynamic infarction. Five of the ten patients with recurrent strokes had low distal flow. Of these, two patients had hemodynamic infarcts, one patient had an embolic infarct, and two patients had a junctional plaque. None of the five patients with normal flow had hemodynamic infarcts, three patients had embolic infarcts, and two patients had a junctional plaque. Conclusion: Despite the small numbers, there seems to be a higher risk of hemodynamic infarction in patients with low flow distal to symptomatic vertebrobasilar disease than in the presence of normal distal flow. This would confirm the hypothesis that in addition to embolic strokes and those related to junctional plaque, patients with low distal flow are at risk for hemodynamic infarction. Further studies are required to determine whether flow measurements could be used to select patients who may benefit from endovascular treatment of atherosclerotic vertebrobasilar disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".