Carotid Artery Wall Imaging: Perspective and Guidelines from the ASNR Vessel Wall Imaging Study Group and Expert Consensus Recommendations of the American Society of Neuroradiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identification of carotid artery atherosclerosis is conventionally based on measurements of luminal stenosis and surface irregularities using in vivo imaging techniques including sonography, CT and MR angiography, and digital subtraction angiography. However, histopathologic studies demonstrate considerable differences between plaques with identical degrees of stenosis and indicate that certain plaque features are associated with increased risk for ischemic events. The ability to look beyond the lumen using highly developed vessel wall imaging methods to identify plaque vulnerable to disruption has prompted an active debate as to whether a paradigm shift is needed to move away from relying on measurements of luminal stenosis for gauging the risk of ischemic injury. Further evaluation in randomized clinical trials will help to better define the exact role of plaque imaging in clinical decision-making. However, current carotid vessel wall imaging techniques can be informative. The goal of this article is to present the perspective of the ASNR Vessel Wall Imaging Study Group as it relates to the current status of arterial wall imaging in carotid artery 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 | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
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".