Prevalence and Incidence of Carotid-Fetal-Posterior Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Carotid-fetal-posterior (CFP) syndrome is a posterior cerebral artery (PCA) territory ischemic stroke/TIA caused by symptomatic ≥50% carotid stenosis or occlusion via fetal posterior communicating artery. We aimed to assess the incidence of CFP syndrome and prevalence of CFP syndrome among symptomatic ≥50% carotid stenosis or occlusion as these are unknown. METHODS: We reassessed consecutive CTAs from 4,042 persons and included locally admitted patients with ≥50% carotid stenosis or occlusion. These were assessed for symptoms and signs of possible posterior circulation stroke/TIA (suspicion of CFP syndrome). Among these, those with unilateral PCA territory stroke/TIA, ipsilateral stenosis, and fetal/fetal-type PCA were considered CFP syndrome. RESULTS: We included 208 locally admitted patients with ≥50% carotid stenosis or occlusion; 33 (16%) patients had suspicion of CFP syndrome, of which 3 (9%) had CFP syndrome. The prevalence of CFP syndrome was 2.9% of symptomatic ≥50% carotid stenosis or occlusion; incidence was 4.23 per 1,000,000 person-years. Also, we found a lower prevalence of CFP syndrome (0.9%, p = 0.047) among referred patients with symptomatic ≥50% carotid stenosis or occlusion than among locally admitted patients with symptomatic ≥50% carotid stenosis or occlusion. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: CFP syndrome has a low incidence and low prevalence among symptomatic carotid stenosis cases. Given lower prevalence of CFP syndrome among referred cases than local, CFP syndrome seems susceptible to underdiagnosis. On the other hand, few cases with suspicion of CFP syndrome had CFP syndrome, why CFP syndrome also seems susceptible to overdiagnosis if detailed assessment is not employed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".