MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416921912 · doi:10.1161/svi270000_289

Abstract 289: Cognitive Outcomes in Symptomatic Intracranial Stenosis: A Post‐hoc SAMMPRIS Analysis of Stenting versus Aggressive Medical Management

2025· article· en· W4416921912 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
T. S. Jaro, Rami Z. Morsi, Archit Baskaran, Karim S. Trad, Ramkrishna Mehendale, Karen Orjuela, James R. Brorson, J. E. Seigler, Ali Mansour, Shyam Prabhakaran, Taha Kass‐Hout

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke Vascular and Interventional Neurology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitionLogistic regressionAngioplastyOdds ratioStentStenosisPercutaneous

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The impact of treatment modality on cognitive function is not well established. In this post‐hoc analysis of the SAMMPRIS trial, we compare cognitive outcomes in patients with symptomatic ICAD managed with percutaneous transluminal angiographic stenting to those treated with aggressive medical management. Methods Using the SAMMPRIS trial sample of 451 patients, we included patients who underwent successful symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (i.e. no periprocedural complications or stenting challenges) along with those those treated with aggressive medical management. Cognitive outcomes between the stenting and aggressive medical management arms were then assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) at 30 days, 4 months, 12 months, and final follow‐up. Multivariate linear and logistic regression models were used to adjust for baseline MoCA score, age, sex, and vascular risk factors. Results Following exclusion for non‐successful stenting, we analyzed 270 patients (stenting: 122, aggressive medical management: 152). The stenting group exhibited significantly reduced odds of achieving MoCA ≥ 26 compared to the medical management group (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.00, p=0.050), representing a 54% higher likelihood of reaching sub‐normal cognitive outcome. Despite higher baseline cognitive function in the stenting group (median MoCA 26 vs 25, p=0.019), no significant difference was observed in continuous MoCA scores between patients receiving stenting and medical management (OR ‐0.63, 95% CI ‐1.60 to 0.34, p=0.205). Conclusion Stenting was associated with decreased long‐term cognitive outcomes relative to symptomatic ICAD treated with aggressive medical therapy. By raising concern about potential cognitive harm from interventional management, these findings highlight the importance of including cognitive outcomes as a factor in treatment selection.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.284
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke Vascular and Interventional NeurologySame topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery DiseasesFrench-language works237,207