Effects of carotid artery stenting on cognitive impairment in patients with severe symptomatic carotid artery stenosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of carotid artery stenting and medication on improvement of cognitive function in patients with severe symptomatic carotid artery stenosis is unknown. To investigate the effect of stenting compared with medication alone for severe carotid atherosclerotic stenosis on cognitive impairment. Patients with carotid stenosis and cognitive impairment were prospectively randomly divided into 2 groups of stenting or medication alone. Cognitive function was evaluated with the Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA), Mini-Mental State Examination, and Barthel Index of Activities of Daily Living (BI). Continuous data in normal distribution were tested with the t-test but with the Mann-Whitney U test if not in normal distribution. Categorical data were presented as frequency and percentages and tested with the Fisher exact test. A P value < .05 was regarded as statistical significant. Carotid artery stenting was successfully performed in all patients (100%) in the stenting group. Compared with before treatment, the Mini-Mental State Examination, MoCA and BI scores at 6 months in the medication alone group and at 1, 3, and 6 months in the stenting group were significantly (P < .005) improved. The stenting group had significantly (P < .05) better scores than the medication alone group at the same time. At 6-month follow-up, the visuospatial/executive functions (3.69 ± 1.42 vs 2.42 ± 1.23), attention (5.24 ± 1.52 vs 3.63 ± 1.47), and language (2.64 ± 0.71 vs 1.96 ± 0.69) were significantly (P < .05) improved in the stenting group compared with the medication alone group. Carotid artery stenting may significantly improve cognitive impairment and neurological function compared with medication alone in patients with severe carotid atherosclerotic stenosis concurrent with cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".