P.065 Physician Approaches to Anti-thrombotic Therapies for Acutely Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis: Insights from the Hot Carotid Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Whereas the beneficial effect of antiplatelet therapy for recurrent stroke prevention is well-established, uncertainties remain regarding the optimal anti-thrombotic regimen for acutely symptomatic carotid stenosis (“hot carotid”), particularly as patients await revascularization. We sought to explore the approaches of stroke physicians to peri-procedural anti-thrombotic management of patients with “hot carotids”. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews regarding “hot carotid” management with purposive sampling of 20 stroke physicians from 14 centres in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. We identified key themes using conventional qualitative content analysis. Results: Important themes revealed from our discussion included limitations of existing clinical trial evidence, competing surgeon versus neurologist/internist preferences, and single vs dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) while awaiting revascularization. Areas of uncertainty included the management of stroke while on aspirin, implications of non-stenotic features of carotid disease (intraluminal thrombus, plaque morphology), the role of newer anti-platelet agents or anticoagulants, platelet aggregation testing, and how soon to start DAPT. Conclusions: Our qualitative analysis revealed themes that were important to stakeholders in stroke care. Teams designing international trials will have to accommodate identified variations in anti-thrombotic practice patterns and take into consideration areas of uncertainty, such as newer anti-thrombotic agents, and the implication of non-stenotic features of carotid disease.
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 | 0.021 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".