P.062 Physician approaches to anti-thrombotic therapies, imaging and revascularization for acutely symptomatic carotid stenosis: a hot carotid qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There are uncertainties regarding the optimal management of acutely symptomatic carotid stenosis (“hot carotids”). We sought to explore the approaches of stroke physicians to anti-thrombotic management, imaging, and revascularization in patients with “hot carotids”. Methods: We used a qualitative descriptive methodology to examine decision-making approaches of physicians regarding the management of hot carotids. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 stroke physicians from various specialties in 16 centers across 4 continents. Results: Important themes regarding anti-thrombotic included limitations of existing clinical trial evidence, competing physician preferences, antiplatelet therapy while awaiting revascularization and various regional differences. Timely imaging availability, breadth of information gained, and surgeon/interventionalist preferences were important themes influencing the choice of imaging modality. The choice of revascularization intervention was influenced by healthcare system factors such as use of multidisciplinary review and operating room/angiography suite availability, and patient factors like age and infarct size. Many themes related to uncertainties in the management of hot carotids were also discussed. Conclusions: Our study revealed themes that are important to international stroke experts. We highlight common and divergent practices while underscoring important areas of clinical equipoise and uncertainty. Teams designing international carotid trials may wish to accommodate identified variations in practice patterns and areas of uncertainty.
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 | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".