<scp>External</scp> carotid artery stenting in patients with ipsilateral internal carotid artery occlusion: Peri‐operative and 12‐month follow‐up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the safety and clinical efficacy of external carotid artery (ECA) stenting in patients with ipsilateral internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion. BACKGROUND: In patients with ICA occlusion, severe ipsilateral ECA stenosis may exacerbate pre-existing cerebral ischemia and cognitive impairment. It remains unclear whether ECA stenting to normalize ECA collaterals to the cerebralis alleviates cerebral ischemia and improves cognitive function. METHODS: From January 2008 to June 2019, we retrospectively collected clinical data of 36 consecutive patients with ipsilateral ICA occlusion who had undergone ECA stenting (mean age, 66.7 ± 8.3 years; males, n = 26 [72.2%]). Neurocognitive test results, including Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) tests, symptom assessment, and adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: ECA stenting was successful in all 36 patients. Intra-operatively, six (16.7%) patients experienced hemodynamic depression during balloon dilation and recovered completely within 2 days. Within a 12-month follow-up period, two patients experienced a transient ischemic attack, one patient had a contralateral minor stroke, and 33 patients remained asymptomatic. No other adverse events occurred in the peri-operative or follow-up periods. Compared with baseline, significant MMSE (25.3 ± 1.3 vs. 23.6 ± 1.7; p < .05) and MOCA (24.1 ± 1.3 vs. 22.8 ± 1.7; p < .05) test score improvements were observed 3 months post-operatively and were maintained throughout follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: ECA stenting may improve cerebral ischemia and cognitive function in patients with severe ECA stenosis and ipsilateral ICA occlusion; however, further research is required to support our findings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".