Anatomical predispositions for silent cerebral infarction postcarotid artery stenting: a retrospective cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Silent cerebral infarction (SCI) that manifests following carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been postulated to correlate with cognitive decline, the onset of dementia, and an increased risk of subsequent cerebrovascular events. This investigation aimed to thoroughly examine the potential anatomical predispositions that are linked to the occurrence of SCI post-CAS, and further develop a predictive nomogram that could accurately forecast the risk of SCI post-CAS. METHODS: The present investigation conducted a retrospective examination of datasets from 250 individuals presenting with carotid artery stenosis who had been subjected to CAS within a tertiary healthcare institution from June 2020 to November 2021. Stratified by the procedural date, participants were allocated into a training cohort and a validation cohort. A nomogram was constructed predicated on salient prognostic determinants discerned via a multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: An aggregate of 184 patients were incorporated into the study, of which 60 (32.6%) manifested SCI, whereas 124 (67.4%) did not. Within the training cohort ( n =123), age (OR 1.08, 95% CI: 1.01-1.16; P =0.034), aortic arch type (Type III vs. I: OR 10.79, 95% CI: 2.12-54.81; P =0.005), aortic arch variant (OR 47.71, 95% CI: 6.05-376.09; P <0.001), common carotid artery (CCA) ostium lesions (OR 6.93, 95% CI: 1.49-32.32; P =0.014), and proximal tortuosity index (TI) (OR 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00-1.02; P =0.029) were demarcated as standalone risk predispositions for SCI subsequent to CAS. The concordance index (C-index) for the training cohort's nomogram stood at 0.89 (95% CI: 0.84-0.95). Moreover, the said nomogram exhibited commendable efficacy within the validation cohort (C-index=0.94) as well as the entire participant base (C-index=0.90). Furthermore, the decision curve analysis illustrated the exemplary clinical applicability of the nomogram. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this inquiry underscore that age, aortic arch type, aortic arch variant, CCA ostium lesions, and proximal TI serve as independent determinants linked with SCI post-CAS. The formulated nomogram, predicated on these risk factors, possesses robust prognostic significance, and might serve as a valuable adjunct to inform clinical decision-making.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".