Carotid Artery Stenting Meeting the Recruitment Challenge of a Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical efficacy of carotid endarterectomy (CEA), whencombined with best medical care and compared with optimal medical management alone, was established in rig-orous clinical trials for symptomatic1–4 and asymptomatic5,6 extracranial carotid occlusive disease. Enrollment was slow for each, and so reporting of results occurred years after the first randomizations. Nonetheless, increases in the numbers of CEAs in the US and Canada occurred soon after these results became available.7 These increases indicated that physicians were exercising restraint while the trials were in progress and then increased referrals for and performance of CEA in response to the positive results. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has been recommended as a less invasive but potentially equally effective treatment for carotid disease. Physicians and patients are eager for infor-mation comparing CEA and CAS. Data derived from previ-
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 | 0.522 | 0.596 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".