Effects of carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy on cognitive function in patients with severe carotid artery stenosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To compare the effects of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) on cognitive function in patients with severe carotid artery stenosis. Methods Two hundreds and sixteen severe carotid artery stenosis patients comprising 70 patients with CEA, 76 patients with CAS and 70 controls were recruited consecutively. All of them were subject to the cognitive assessment including Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE), the Chinese version Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and event related potential P300 pre- and post-treatment for 3 months. Results During the 3-month follow-up period, patients who underwent CEA(MMSE: 27.10±1.62, MoCA: 24.16±1.81) or CAS (MMSE: 26.70±1.52, MoCA: 23.58±1.78)exhibited significant improvements in cognitive function compared with pre-treatment(MMSE: 26.31±1.38, MoCA: 23.21±1.39; MMSE: 25.95±1.44, MoCA: 22.85±1.51; all P=0.000). It did not show significant difference in the control group when comparing the pre- with the post-treatment. The improvement in MoCA score and reduction in P300 (ms)incubation in CEA(0.94±0.90, 22.09±21.85)seemed more obvious than those in CAS(0.73±0.78, 18.80±25.41), although the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion The findings of this study suggest that both CEA and CAS have a significant effect on cognitive function in patients with severe carotid artery stenosis. Key words: Carotid stenosis; Endarterectomy, carotid; Stents; Cognition disorders; Neuropsychological tests
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".