MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4234399330 · doi:10.1161/str.32.suppl_1.327-d

Overall results of a pooled analysis of individual patient data from trials of endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis

2001· article· en· W4234399330 on OpenAlexaff
Peter M. Rothwell, Sergei A. Gutnikov, Michael Eliasziw, Alan J Fox, Wayne Taylor, Henry J.M. Barnett, Charles Warlow

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsMcMaster University Medical CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStenosisCarotid endarterectomyEndarterectomyStroke (engine)SurgeryClinical trialRandomized controlled trialCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

64 Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is beneficial for severe symptomatic stenosis, but trial results for moderate stenosis have been conflicting. This may be due to the differences between trials in the method of measurement of carotid stenosis, differences in outcome definitions, or chance. We used the same definitions of outcomes and the same method of measurement of stenosis to pool individual patient data on over 95% of patients ever randomised in trials of CEA for symptomatic stenosis: European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST); North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial; Veterans Administration trial #309. The degree of stenosis was remeasured on the 3018 pre-randomisation ECST angiograms by the method used in the other two trials. Remeasurements correlated well with the original measurements (r=0.94, P<0.00001). Data were merged on 6092 patients with 1711 strokes and 1493 deaths during 35,000 patient years of follow-up. Patients were categorised according to the degree of symptomatic stenosis: <30% (n=1755); 30–49% (n=1441); 50–69% (n=1547); 70–99% (n = 1338); occlusion (n = 9); unknown (n=2). Surgery was harmful in patients with <30% stenosis, and was of no benefit in patients with 30–49% stenosis. Surgery reduced the risk of any stroke or surgical death in patients with 50–69% stenosis (NNT = 14, 95% CI = 8–30), and this was consistent across the individual trials. Surgery was highly beneficial in patients with 70–99% stenosis (NNT = 8, 95% CI = 5–12), but had no effect on overall survival. Operative mortality was 1.1% (95% CI = 0.9–1.4) and the operative risk of stroke and death was 7.0% (95% CI = 6.2–8.0). In contrast to interpretations of the original trial reports, by using the same outcome definitions and the same method of measurement of stenosis we have demonstrated that the trial results are entirely consistent. By combining all available trial data we have determined the effect of surgery with greater precision. CEA reduces the risk of any stroke or death in patients with 50–99% carotid stenosis, although benefit is less than for 70–99% stenosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.067
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0670.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0260.062
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases→French-language works237,207→