Prevalence of spontaneous recanalisation of complete internal carotid occlusion: protocol for a systematic scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although previously thought to be a rare occurrence, spontaneous recanalisation is not uncommon, with a growing number of reports describing this phenomenon. However, the frequency, time course and mechanism of spontaneous recanalisation remain unknown. A better characterisation of these events is essential to ensuring adequate identification and proper future trial design for treatment. OBJECTIVE: To describe the current body of literature around spontaneous recanalisation following internal carotid occlusion. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: With the assistance of an information specialist, we will search MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials and Web of Science for studies of adults with spontaneous recanalisation or transient occlusion of the internal carotid artery. Two reviewers will independently collect data on included studies pertaining to publication data, study population information, timepoints of initial presentation, recanalisation and subsequent follow-up. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Primary data will not be collected; therefore, formal ethics is not required. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at academic conferences.
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 | 0.088 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.007 |
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".