A Systematic Literature Review of Patients With Carotid Web and Acute Ischemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose- Carotid web (CW) is a rare form of focal fibromuscular dysplasia defined as an abnormal shelf-like projection of intimal fibrous tissue into the carotid bulb. It is theorized that CW leads to ischemic stroke secondary to blood flow stasis and subsequent embolization. The natural history and optimal management of CW are unclear. To address this knowledge gap, we performed a systematic literature review (SLR) of CW. Methods- Our librarians performed a SLR for CW and related terminology. Patient-level demographics, stroke risk factors, neuroimaging findings, stroke recurrence or stroke free-duration, and treatment modality were extracted. We used descriptive statistics to characterize our results. When specific patient-level metrics were not reported, the denominators for reporting percentage calculations were adjusted accordingly. Results- Our literature search produced 1150 articles. Thirty-seven articles including 158 patients (median age 46 years [range 16-85], 68% women, 76% symptomatic) met entry criteria and were included in our SLR. Of the symptomatic CW patients: 57% did not have stroke risk factors, 56% who received medical therapy had recurrent stroke (median 12 months, range 0-97), and 72% were ultimately treated with carotid revascularization (50% carotid stenting, 50% carotid endarterectomy). There were no periprocedural complications or recurrent strokes in carotid revascularization patients. Conclusions- CW leads to ischemic stroke in younger patients without conventional stroke risk factors. We found a high stroke recurrence rate in medically managed symptomatic CW patients, whereas carotid revascularization effectively prevented recurrent stroke. Our findings should be interpreted with caution because of risk of publication and reporting bias.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".