MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416507561 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2508800

Medical Management and Revascularization for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis

2025· article· en· W4416507561 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas G. Brott, George Howard, Brajesh K. Lal, Jenifer H. Voeks, Tanya N. Turan, Gary S. Roubin, Ronald M. Lazar, Robert D. Brown, John Huston, Lloyd J. Edwards, Michael Jones, Wayne M. Clark, Ángel Chamorro, Laura Llull, Carlos Mena‐Hurtado, Donald Heck, Randolph S. Marshall, Virginia J. Howard, Wesley S. Moore, Kevin M. Barrett, Bart M. Demaerschalk, Navdeep Sangha, Herbert D. Aronow, Malcolm Foster, W. Charles Sternbergh, Fayaz A. Shawl, Giuseppe Lanzino, Joseph H. Rapp, Hoang S. Tran, Robert D. Ecker, Ariane Mackey, Vaqar Ali, Curtis A. Given, Philip Teal, Vikram S. Kashyap, Dipankar Mukherjee, Mark R. Harrigan, Scott Silverman, Matthew C. Koopmann, Virginia G. Wadley, Yu Zhang, J. Rhodes, Seemant Chaturvedi, James F. Meschia

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsAsymptomaticStroke (engine)StenosisCarotid endarterectomyRevascularizationEndarterectomyPerioperativeCarotid stenting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Improvements in medical therapy, carotid-artery stenting, and carotid endarterectomy call into question the preferred management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Whether adding revascularization to intensive medical management would provide greater benefit than intensive medical management alone is unclear. METHODS: We conducted two parallel, observer-blinded clinical trials that enrolled patients with high-grade (≥70%) asymptomatic carotid stenosis across 155 centers in five countries. The stenting trial compared intensive medical management alone (medical-therapy group) with carotid-artery stenting plus intensive medical management (stenting group); the endarterectomy trial compared intensive medical management alone (medical-therapy group) with carotid endarterectomy plus intensive medical management (endarterectomy group). The primary outcome was a composite of any stroke or death, assessed from randomization to 44 days, or ipsilateral ischemic stroke, assessed during the remaining follow-up period up to 4 years. RESULTS: A total of 1245 patients underwent randomization in the stenting trial and 1240 in the endarterectomy trial. In the stenting trial, the 4-year incidence of primary-outcome events was 6.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.8 to 8.3) in the medical-therapy group and 2.8% (95% CI, 1.5 to 4.3) in the stenting group (P = 0.02 for the absolute difference). In the endarterectomy trial, the 4-year incidence of primary-outcome events was 5.3% (95% CI, 3.3 to 7.4) in the medical-therapy group and 3.7% (95% CI, 2.1 to 5.5) in the endarterectomy group (P = 0.24 for the absolute difference). From day 0 to 44, in the stenting trial, no strokes or deaths occurred in the medical-therapy group and seven strokes and one death occurred in the stenting group; in the endarterectomy trial, three strokes occurred in the medical-therapy group and nine strokes occurred in the endarterectomy group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with high-grade stenosis without recent symptoms, the addition of stenting led to a lower risk of a composite of perioperative stroke or death or ipsilateral stroke within 4 years than intensive medical management alone. Carotid endarterectomy did not lead to a significant benefit. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and others; CREST-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02089217.).

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations61
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery DiseasesFrench-language works237,207