Abstract P566: Identifying Sex-Specific Differences in the Carotid Revascularization Literature: Findings From a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose: No systematic review of the literature has dedicated itself to looking at the management of symptomatic carotid stenosis in women. In this scoping review, we aimed to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported sex-specific outcomes for patients who underwent carotid revascularization, and determine whether sufficient information is reported within these studies to assess women’s short and long-term outcomes. Methods: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane libraries for RCTs published between 1991 and 2020 that included women and compared either endarterectomy with stenting, or any revascularization (endarterectomy or stenting) with medical therapy in patients with symptomatic high grade (greater than 50%) carotid stenosis. Results: From 1,537 references examined, 27 eligible studies were identified. Sex-specific outcomes were reported in 13 studies. Baseline patient characteristics of enrolled women were reported in 2 of those 13 studies. Common outcomes reported included stroke and death, however there was significant heterogeneity in the reporting of both periprocedural and long-term outcomes. Sex-specific differences relating to the degree of stenosis and time from index event to treatment were limited to studies comparing endarterectomy to medical therapy. Adverse events were not reported by sex. Conclusions: Half of the previously published RCTs and systematic reviews report sex-specific outcomes. Detailed analysis on the benefits of carotid artery intervention for women with symptomatic stenosis is limited . Further analysis with individual patient data and a network meta-analysis is the necessary next step to better assess the treatment effects of carotid management in women.
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 | 0.041 | 0.214 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".