MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409125048 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000213548

Incidence Trends and Risk of Recurrent Stroke of Cervical Artery Dissections in the United States Between 2005 and 2019

2025· article· en· W4409125048 on OpenAlexaff
Liqi Shu, Lukas Strelecky, Adam de Havenon, Thanh N. Nguyen, Nils Henninger, Zafer Keser, Muhib Khan, James E. Siegler, Mary Penckofer, Setareh Salehi Omran, Thalia S. Field, Lily Zhou, Han Xiao, Austin Jacobson, Eric Goldstein, Christoph Stretz, Farhan Khan, Elizabeth Perelstein, Karen L. Furie, Shadi Yaghi

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)Cervical ArteryStroke (engine)Risk factorSurgeryDissection (medical)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cervical artery dissection (CeAD) is a common cause of acute ischemic stroke (AIS), especially in patients younger than 55 years, but data regarding trends and subsequent AIS risk after CeAD remain scarce. We aimed to determine national trends in CeAD admissions and examine post-CeAD risk of ischemic stroke. METHODS: codes. Survey-weighted annual CeAD cases were combined with US census data to estimate annual incidence. National estimates were verified with state-level data, which allows for the removal of duplicate admissions for a single patient through a unique patient identifier. Joinpoint regression was used to quantify the average annual percent change (AAPC) of CeAD incidence. AIS readmission risk after CeAD without concurrent AIS was assessed with death as a competing risk using Fine and Gray competing risk methodology. RESULTS: = 0.006). Interaction and subgroup analyses were performed and demonstrated similar results. DISCUSSION: There was an almost 5-fold increase in CeAD hospitalizations and an upward incidence trend from 2005 to 2019, particularly in racial minorities, which may be attributed to increased imaging and awareness of CeAD. Our study also revealed a small but significant risk of AIS in patients with vertebral artery dissection without concurrent ischemic stroke. These findings underscore the importance of studying acute treatment and secondary prevention strategies in patients with CeAD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology→Same topicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications→French-language works237,207→