MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W99603072 · doi:10.1191/1358863x05vm588xx

Vascular viewpoint

2005· letter· en· W99603072 on OpenAlexaff
Naufal Mohammed, Sonia S. Anand

Bibliographic record

VenueVascular Medicine · 2005
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCarotid endarterectomyStroke (engine)StenosisAsymptomaticPerioperativeIncidence (geometry)SurgeryRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineEndarterectomyCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

QUESTION: Is carotid endarterectomy (CEA) an effective and safe treatment for the prevention of stroke among patients with >60% internal carotid artery stenosis who had no neurologic symptoms in the previous 6 months. POPULATION: Men and women with severe (>60%) unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis not associated with neurologic symptoms in the past 6 months, where both doctor and patient were uncertain whether to choose or to defer immediate CEA. DESIGN AND METHODS: During 1993-2003, 3120 asymptomatic patients with >60% carotid stenosis were randomized equally to immediate CEA versus indefinite deferral of CEA, and were followed for up to 5 years. The primary end point was risk of stroke or death at 5 years. Analysis was by intention to treat. The treatment of patients with antiplatelet agents, antihypertensive and lipid-lowering therapies was left to the discretion of the clinician. RESULTS: Among patients randomized to immediate CEA (50% had CEA by 1 month, 88% by 1 year) versus deferred, the incidence of stroke or death at 5 years was 6.4% versus 11.8% (95% CI: 3.0-7.7, p < 0.0001); 3.5% versus 6.1% for fatal or disabling strokes (95% CI: 0.8-4.3, p = 0.004), and 2.1% versus 4.2% for fatal strokes (95% CI: 0.6-3.6, p = 0.006). The perioperative stroke incidence was marginally higher in the delayed group versus the immediate group (4.5% versus 2.8%) and overall the risk per CEA of perioperative stroke or death was 3.1%. After excluding the perioperative events from the analysis, the 5-year stroke risks were 3.8% versus 11% (95% CI: 5.0-9.4], p < 0.0001). Surgery primarily prevented carotid territory ischemic strokes (2.7% vs 9.5%; gain 6.8% [4.8-8.8], p < 0.0001). The impact of immediate surgery was consistent in all age groups, among men and women, and across the spectrum of carotid stenosis (i.e. 70%, 80% and 90% carotid stenosis). CONCLUSION: In asymptomatic patients younger than 75 years of age with carotid stenosis of 70% or more on ultrasound, immediate CEA reduces the 5-year incidence of stroke and death.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1890.097

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations57
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVascular MedicineSame topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery DiseasesFrench-language works237,207