MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3024800048

[Assessing efficacy of carotid endarterectomy by means of intraoperative flowmetry].

2017· article· en· W3024800048 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
В. А. Лукьянчиков, А. С. Токарев, Н. А. Полунина, O Iu Nakhabin, E. V. Udodov, Ваан Ашикович Далибалдян, А. В. Сытник, Krylov Vv

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarotid endarterectomyMedicineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentInternal carotid arteryEndarterectomyRivermead post-concussion symptoms questionnaireModified Rankin ScaleFunctional Independence MeasureCerebral blood flowSurgeryInternal medicinePhysical therapyCarotid arteriesAnesthesiaCognitive impairmentIschemic strokeActivities of daily livingRehabilitationIschemia
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: The study was aimed at determining volumetric blood flow velocity (VBFV) through the internal carotid artery (ICA) and assessing functional outcomes of treatment of patients, taking into consideration the dynamics of VBFV before and after the operation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study comprised a total of 53 patients subjected to examination of VBFV through the ICA before and after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) assessed by means of flowmetry. Neurological deficit was evaluated by means of the NIHS Scale (the M NIHSS prior to operation equalling 2.49), the degree of disability and functional independence of the patient after endured stroke was assessed by the modified Rankin Scale (the M mRS before operation amounting to 1.23) and the Rivermead Mobility Index, the severity of cognitive dysfunctions was determined by the Mini-Mental State Examination (the M MMSE before surgery equalling 24.85) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment scale (the M MoCA before surgery scoring 23.3). RESULTS: At the first stage of examination we determined that the VBFV after the operation increased in all patients, but the highest values of the increment were observed in groups of patients with ICA stenoses of 80-89% and 90-99%. During the second stage, it was determined that with a higher value of the VBFV after carotid endarterectomy regression of neurological deficit occurred faster (the postoperative M NIHSS scoring 2.09, with the M mRS of 1.00), the patients demonstrated higher results while undergoing the tests for intellectual ability (the postoperative MMSE and MoCA equalling 25.4 and 23.91, respectively) compared with the patients showing low values of the increment of the VBFV after the operation. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative flowmetry is a simple and efficient method of evaluating the VBFV through the ICA, an increase in volumetric blood flow (VBF) contributes to restoration of normal perfusion of the brain and creates prerequisites for more complete and faster restoration of the lost functions after ischaemic stroke (IS) and chronic cerebral ischaemia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases→French-language works237,207→