Multinational Survey of Current Practice from Imaging to Treatment of Atherosclerotic Carotid Stenosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the last 20-30 years, there have been many advances in imaging and therapeutic strategies for symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals with carotid artery stenosis. Our aim was to examine contemporary multinational practice standards. METHODS: Departmental Review Board approval for this study was obtained, and 3 authors prepared the 44 multiple choice survey questions. Endorsement was obtained by the European Society of Neuroradiology, American Society of Functional Neuroradiology, and African Academy of Neurology. A link to the online questionnaire was sent to their respective members and members of the Faculty Advocating Collaborative and Thoughtful Carotid Artery Treatments (FACTCATS). The questionnaire was open from May 16 to July 16, 2019. RESULTS: The responses from 223 respondents from 46 countries were included in the analyses including 65.9% from academic university hospitals. Neuroradiologists/radiologists comprised 68.2% of respondents, followed by neurologists (15%) and vascular surgeons (12.9%). In symptomatic patients, half (50.4%) the respondents answered that the first exam they used to evaluate carotid bifurcation was ultrasound, followed by computed tomography angiography (CTA, 41.6%) and then magnetic resonance imaging (MRI 8%). In asymptomatic patients, the first exam used to evaluate carotid bifurcation was ultrasound in 88.8% of respondents, CTA in 7%, and MRA in 4.2%. The percent stenosis upon which carotid endarterectomy or stenting was recommended was reduced in the presence of imaging evidence of "vulnerable plaque features" by 66.7% respondents for symptomatic patients and 34.2% for asymptomatic patients with a smaller subset of respondents even offering procedural intervention to patients with <50% symptomatic or asymptomatic stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: We found heterogeneity in current practices of carotid stenosis imaging and management in this worldwide survey with many respondents including vulnerable plaque imaging into their decision analysis despite the lack of proven benefit from clinical trials. This study highlights the need for new clinical trials using vulnerable plaque imaging to select high-risk patients despite maximal medical therapy who may benefit from procedural intervention.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".