Abstract TP209: Prevalence of Spontaneous Recanalization of Internal Carotid Occlusion: A Systematic Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Spontaneous recanalization of occluded internal carotid arteries (ICAs) is thought to be an uncommon etiology of recurrent ischemic stroke. However, there is a growing number of reports describing this phenomenon, suggesting that follow-up investigations and/or intervention may be warranted. Our objective was to perform a scoping review of the literature to estimate the prevalence of spontaneous ICA recanalization and the timing of recanalization, and to describe imaging modalities used in follow-up as well as any post-recanalization interventions. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science were searched from inception to June 2022 for studies that included adults with spontaneous recanalization or transient occlusion of the internal carotid artery. Two investigators independently screened the studies and extracted data around recanalization prevalence, timepoints, imaging, and treatment. These results were described qualitatively, and descriptive statistics were calculated where appropriate. Results: Among the 2384 studies retrieved, 51 met inclusion criteria, of which 34 were case studies and 17 were cohort studies, with a total of 816 patients. Prevalence of recanalization was reported in 20 studies (3 case studies, 17 cohort studies) at a median of 40.0% (IQR 22.5 - 40.0%) in case studies, and 21.2% (IQR 9.2 - 37.5%) in cohort studies. Forty-one studies reported a time frame for when recanalization was identified, with 53.7% individual cases in case studies and 33.3% amongst cohort studies identified within the first 3 months after occlusion. When reported, antiplatelet treatment was the most common medical treatment pre- and post-recanalization with 189 and 36 individuals, respectively. Finally, doppler imaging was used in 70.6% of studies to identify recanalization, with angiography as the next most common modality at 54.9%. Twenty studies reported an endovascular intervention. Conclusions: Spontaneous recanalization occurs more commonly than previously thought. Currently there is no consensus on what intervention is needed (if any), or when this intervention would occur. More data is needed to confirm this data and determine the best time frame to re-image.
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 | 0.017 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".