P.063 Physician approaches to the initial management of an intraluminal thrombus in recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis: results from the Hot Carotid Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The presence of intraluminal thrombi (ILT) in acutely symptomatic carotid stenosis (“hot carotid”) represents a therapeutic dilemma for physicians. With little evidence to guide treatment, current ILT management approaches rely on individual or institutional preferences. Methods: This mixed methods study analyzed themes from semi-structured interviews with 22 stroke physicians from 16 centers, paired with a worldwide case-based survey of 628 stroke physicians conducted through the “Practice Current” section of Neurology: Clinical Practice. Results: In the thematic analysis of the interviews and quantitative analysis of the survey, participants favoured using anticoagulation with or without antiplatelet agents in patients with ILT (463/628, 74%). Despite a preference for anticoagulation, uncertainty regarding optimal antithrombotic management was noted in the thematic analysis. Additional themes identified included a preference for re-imaging patients in 3-5 days after initiating treatment to look for complete or partial clot resolution, at which point most experts would then be comfortable proceeding with revascularization if indicated, though uncertainty regarding the optimal timing of revascularization was noted. Conclusions: In cases of ILT in the “hot carotid” practice patterns of global experts show a preference for using anticoagulation and reimaging patients in 3-5 days, though there is considerable equipoise regarding the most appropriate management of these patients.
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 | 0.008 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".