Patent Foramen Ovale Closure in Older Patients With Cryptogenic Stroke: Current Evidence and Next Steps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stroke is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, with recurrence risk increasing with age. In patients over 60 years of age with cryptogenic stroke, paradoxical embolism through a patent foramen ovale may be an important pathophysiology contributor, particularly when high-risk anatomical features (e.g., large shunt, atrial septal aneurysm) are present. Although patent foramen ovale closure has become a standard therapy in younger cryptogenic stroke patients, its benefit in older adults remains uncertain due to limited evidence and the need to exclude highly prevalent alternative causes like atrial fibrillation or carotid disease. A multidisciplinary heart-brain team is critical for accurate diagnosis, patient selection, and shared decision-making. Current guidelines vary and highlight the need for more robust data in this population. Recent observational studies suggest that patent foramen ovale closure in older patients may be safe and potentially reduce stroke recurrence compared to antithrombotic therapy alone. Ongoing randomized controlled trials are expected to provide definitive evidence on the efficacy and safety of patent foramen ovale closure in this age group, guiding future clinical decisions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".