Carotid Stenting for Treatment of Symptomatic Carotid Webs: A Single-Center Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Carotid webs are an increasingly recognized cause of acute is-chemic stroke, particularly in younger adults. The optimal medical and surgical strategies for managing these lesions have not been well established. We report a single-center case series of carotid stenting for treatment of symptomatic carotid webs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing stent placement for treatment of symptomatic carotid webs were included. Carotid webs were defined as a thin intraluminal filling defect along the posterior wall of the carotid bulb just beyond the carotid bifurcation on CTA. Data were collected on demographic characteristics, antiplatelet management, clinical presentation, imaging findings, treatment characteristics, complications, and stroke recurrence rates. Descriptive statistics are reported. RESULTS: A total of 4 patients were treated. Their mean age was 44 years (range 30-50). Three patients were female and 1 was male. All patients were symptomatic presenting with ipsilateral transient ischemic attacks or stroke. Patients were placed on dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor and aspirin prior to the procedure. There were no ischemic or hemorrhagic complications. Three patients had postoperative bradycardia, 1 of whom required atropine immediately following stenting. No patients had recurrent ischemic events. CONCLUSIONS: Stent placement for treatment of carotid webs can be performed safely. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".