Cerebrovascular Events in Older Patients With Patent Foramen Ovale: Current Status and Future Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure, along with medical therapy, has emerged as the therapeutic gold standard in younger (<60-year-old) patients with a PFO-related stroke for preventing recurrent events. However, PFO management guidelines lack definite recommendations for older (>60 years) patients with a PFO-related cerebrovascular event, a complex group of patients who were mostly excluded from PFO closure clinical trials. Nevertheless, several studies have shown a higher prevalence of PFO among older patients with cryptogenic stroke, and its presence has been associated with an increased risk of recurrent events. Furthermore, older patients exhibit a higher prevalence of high-risk PFO anatomical features, present inherent age-related risk factors that might increase the risk of paradoxical embolism through a PFO, and have a higher incidence of ischemic events after a PFO-related event. Additionally, observational studies have shown the safety and preliminary efficacy of PFO closure in older PFO-related stroke patients. Yet, higher rates of recurrent cerebrovascular events and new-onset atrial fibrillation were observed in some studies among older patients compared to their younger counterparts. After careful case-by-case evaluation, including the assessment of hidden potential cardioembolic sources of a cryptogenic stroke other than PFO, transcatheter PFO closure might be a safe and effective therapeutic option for preventing recurrent thromboembolic events in patients >60 years with a high-risk PFO-associated stroke. Ongoing trials will provide important insights into the role of PFO closure in the elderly population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".