MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3045332650 · doi:10.1161/str.51.suppl_1.155

Abstract 155: Comparative Effectiveness of Carotid Endarterectomy Compared to Medical Therapy Among Patients With Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis

2020· article· en· W3045332650 on OpenAlexaff
Salomeh Keyhani, Eric Cheng, Katherine J. Hoggatt, Peter C. Austin, Paul L. Hebert, Ethan A. Halm, Jason M. Johanning, Ayman Naseri, Wendy W. Chapman, Dawn M. Bravata

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCarotid endarterectomyAsymptomaticStenosisStroke (engine)Randomized controlled trialPerioperativeCensoring (clinical trials)Internal medicineSurgeryConfoundingCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) reduces stroke risk compared to medical therapy alone among patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. CEA involves a tradeoff between higher perioperative short-term risks in exchange for a lower long-term risk of stroke. However, overall declines in stroke rates raise concerns that CEA may no longer be a preferred treatment. We examined the effectiveness of CEA compared to medical therapy (MT) among asymptomatic patients in preventing stroke and stroke-death within 5 years of follow-up. Methods: We identified Veterans ≥65 years old with carotid stenosis (n=2712 CEA and n=2509 MT patients) who did not have a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack. We propensity score-matched MT patients to CEA patients to control for baseline confounding and used methods to mimic analyses from the Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Trial, the last published trial to compare CEA to MT. We accounted for “immortal time” bias by randomizing patients to CEA and MT groups and censoring patients if their actual treatment became inconsistent with the arm in which they were randomized (e.g., patient received CEA, but was randomized to MT). We accounted for the informative censoring by estimating time-dependent inverse probability of censoring weights using measured covariates (demographics and 72 time-varying comorbidities). We computed weighted Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves and estimated the risk of stroke/stroke-death in each group over 5 years of follow-up. Results: The observed stroke or death rate (perioperative complications) within 30 days in the CEA arm was 3%. The 5-year risk were similar among patients randomized to CEA 5.5% (95% CI, 4.3%-6.7%) versus MT 7.6% (95% CI,5.9%-9.2%) (risk difference, -2.1%, 95% CI -4%- 0%) with little difference in the KM curves (logrank p=0.2). Conclusion: CEA was not superior to MT in a community sample of Veterans after 5 years of follow-up, suggesting that CEA may no longer be the preferred treatment strategy.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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