Assessment of Recurrent Stroke Risk in Patients With a Carotid Web
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: A carotid web (CW) is a shelf-like lesion along the posterior wall of the internal carotid artery bulb and an underrecognized cause of young stroke. Several studies suggest that patients with symptomatic CW have a high risk of recurrent stroke, but high-quality data are lacking. Objective: To assess the 2-year risk of recurrent stroke in patients with a symptomatic CW. Design, Setting, and Participants: A comparative cohort study used data from the MR CLEAN trial (from 2010-2014) and MR CLEAN Registry (from 2014-2017). Data were analyzed in September 2020. The MR CLEAN trial and MR CLEAN Registry were nationwide prospective multicenter studies on endovascular treatment (EVT) of large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke in the Netherlands. Baseline data were from 3439 consecutive adult patients with anterior circulation LVO stroke and available computed tomography (CT)-angiography of the carotid bulb. Two neuroradiologists reevaluated CT-angiography images for presence or absence of CW and identified 30 patients with CW ipsilateral to the index stroke. For these 30 eligible CW participants, detailed follow-up data regarding stroke recurrence within 2 years were acquired. These 30 patients with CW ipsilateral to the index stroke were compared with 168 patients without CW who participated in the MR CLEAN extended follow-up trial and who were randomized to the EVT arm. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was recurrent stroke occurring within 2 years after the index stroke. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to compare recurrent stroke rates within 2 years for patients with and without CW, adjusted for age and sex. The research question was formulated prior to data collection. Results: Of 3439 patients with baseline CT-angiography assessed, the median age was 72 years (interquartile range, 61-80 years) and 1813 (53%) were men. Patients with CW were younger (median age, 57 [interquartile range, 46-66] years vs 66 [interquartile range, 56-77] years; P = .02 and more often women (22 of 30 [73%] vs 67 of 168 [40%]; P = .001) than patients without CW. Twenty-eight of 30 patients (93%) received medical management after the index stroke (23 with antiplatelet therapy and 5 with anticoagulant therapy). During 2 years of follow-up, 5 of 30 patients (17%) with CW had a recurrent stroke compared with 5 of 168 patients (3%) without CW (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.9; 95% CI, 1.4-18.1). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, 1 of 6 patients with a symptomatic CW had a recurrent stroke within 2 years, suggesting that medical management alone may not provide sufficient protection for patients with CW.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".