ArticleNeurosurgical review2022
Potential of machine learning to predict early ischemic events after carotid endarterectomy or stenting: a comparison with surgeon predictions.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative safety and efficacy of invasive therapies for carotid artery stenosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Journal of neurointerventional surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Prediction of cardiovascular events after carotid endarterectomy using pathological images and clinical data.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2025Article
- A nomogram for predicting adverse neurovascular events after carotid artery stenting in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence: The magic 8 ball for vascular surgery.JVS-vascular science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are recommended for high stroke-risk patients with carotid artery stenosis to reduce ischemic events. However, we often face difficulty in determining the best treatment strategy. We aimed to develop an accurate post-CEA/CAS outcome prediction model using machine learning that will serve as a basis for a new decision support tool for patient-specific treatment planning. Retrospectively collected data from 165 consecutive patients with carotid stenosis underwent CEA or CAS and were divided into training and test samples. The following five machine learning algorithms were tuned, and their predictive performance was evaluated by comparison with surgeon predictions: an artificial neural network, logistic regression, support vector machine, random forest, and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost). Seventeen clinical factors were introduced into the models. Outcome was defined as any ischemic stroke within 30 days after treatment including asymptomatic diffusion-weighted imaging abnormalities. The XGBoost model performed the best in the evaluation; its sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and accuracy were 31.9%, 94.6%, 47.2%, and 86.2%, respectively. These statistical measures were comparable to those of surgeons. Internal carotid artery peak systolic velocity, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and procedure (CEA or CAS) were the most contributing factors according to the XGBoost algorithm. We were able to develop a post-procedural outcome prediction model comparable to surgeons in performance. The accurate outcome prediction model will make it possible to make a more appropriate patient-specific selection of CEA or CAS for the treatment of carotid artery stenosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.