MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042079805 · doi:10.3174/ajnr.a6613

The Risk of Stroke and TIA in Nonstenotic Carotid Plaques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020· review· en· W3042079805 on OpenAlexaff
Nishita Singh, Martha Marko, Johanna M. Ospel, Mayank Goyal, Mohammed Almekhlafi

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)StenosisMeta-analysisInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)Cardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>BACKGROUND:</h3> Severe carotid stenosis carries a high risk of stroke. However, the risk of stroke with nonstenotic carotid plaques (&lt;50%) is increasingly recognized. <h3>PURPOSE:</h3> We aimed to summarize the risk of TIA or stroke in patients with nonstenotic carotid plaques. <h3>DATA SOURCES:</h3> We performed a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis in patients with acute ischemic stroke in whom carotid imaging was performed using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database, including studies published up to December 2019. <h3>STUDY SELECTION:</h3> Included studies had &gt;10 patients with &lt;50% carotid plaques on any imaging technique and reported the incidence or recurrence of ischemic stroke/TIA. High-risk plaque features and the risk of progression to stenosis &gt;50% were extracted if reported. <h3>DATA SYNTHESIS:</h3> We identified 31 studies reporting on the risk of ipsilateral stroke/TIA in patients with nonstenotic carotid plaques. Twenty-five studies (<i>n</i> = 13,428 participants) reported on first-ever stroke/TIA and 6 studies (<i>n</i> = 122 participants) reported on the recurrence of stroke/TIA. <h3>DATA ANALYSIS:</h3> The incidence of first-ever ipsilateral stroke/TIA was 0.5/100 person-years. The risk of recurrent stroke/TIA was 2.6/100 person-years and increased to 4.9/100 person-years if intraplaque hemorrhage was present. The risk of progression to severe stenosis (&gt;50%) was 2.9/100 person-years (8 studies, <i>n</i> = 448 participants). <h3>LIMITATIONS:</h3> Included studies showed heterogeneity in reporting stroke etiology, the extent of stroke work-up, imaging modalities, and classification systems used for characterizing carotid stenosis. <h3>CONCLUSIONS:</h3> The risk of recurrent stroke/TIA in nonstenotic carotid plaques is not negligible, especially in the presence of high-risk plaque features. Further research is needed to better define the significance of nonstenotic carotid plaques for stroke etiology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations54
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of NeuroradiologySame topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery DiseasesFrench-language works237,207