Management of Mobile Thrombus With Distal Protection Devices During Carotid Artery Angioplasty: 2-Dimensional Operative Video
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Embolic protection devices (EPDs) have become a standard of care during internal carotid artery revascularization.1,2 This video is about a 57-yr-old-male who presented with a wake-up stroke with a left hemispheric syndrome. Head computed tomography angiography (CTA) revealed tandem occlusions of the proximal left internal carotid artery (ICA) and of the distal left middle cerebral artery (MCA) with an ASPECT (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score) score of 6. The patient underwent a cerebral angiogram and was treated with balloon angioplasty with a distal EPD and mechanical thrombectomy. The EPD became occluded with thrombus from the ICA and was retrieved through a 6-Fr Sofia (MicroVention) under continuous aspiration. Successful revascularization of the proximal ICA and distal MCA was achieved. No procedure-related complications occurred, and the patient's neurological exam improved. Tandem occlusions can occur in up to 15% of strokes. The optimal treatment can be controversial, but mechanical thrombectomy and ICA revascularization with a distal EPD appear to be safe and effective in selected patients.3 Consent was obtained for the procedure and for the video production.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".