Carotid Plaque With High-Risk Features in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose- An ipsilateral mild carotid stenosis, defined as plaque with <50% luminal narrowing, is identified in nearly 40% of patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source and could represent an unrecognized source of atheroembolism. We aimed to summarize data about the frequency of mild carotid stenosis with high-risk features in embolic stroke of undetermined source. Methods- We searched Pubmed and Ovid-Embase for studies reporting carotid plaque imaging features in embolic stroke of undetermined source. The prevalence of ipsilateral and contralateral mild carotid stenosis with high-risk features was pooled using random-effect meta-analysis. Results- Eight studies enrolling 323 participants were included. The prevalence of mild carotid stenosis with high-risk features in the ipsilateral carotid was 32.5% (95% CI, 25.3-40.2) compared with 4.6% (95% CI, 0.1-13.1) in the contralateral carotid. The odds ratio of finding a plaque with high-risk features in the ipsilateral versus the contralateral carotid was 5.5 (95% CI, 2.5-12.0). Conclusions- Plaques with high-risk features are 5 times more prevalent in the ipsilateral compared with the contralateral carotid in embolic stroke of undetermined source, suggesting a relationship to stroke risk.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".