Observational studyDiagnostic pathology2022
Quantitative comparison between carotid plaque hardness and histopathological findings: an observational study.
Observational study in Diagnostic pathology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Combining artificial intelligence assisted image segmentation and ultrasound based radiomics for the prediction of carotid plaque stability.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Calcification circumference, area, and location are associated with carotid stent expansion rate: high-resolution magnetic resonance vessel wall imaging study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlaque hardness in carotid artery stenosis correlates with cerebral infarction. This study aimed to quantitatively compare plaque hardness with histopathological findings and identify the pathological factors involved in plaque hardness.
methodsThis study included 84 patients (89 lesions) undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) at our institution. Plaque hardness was quantitatively measured immediately after excision using a hardness meter. Collagen and calcification were evaluated as the pathological factors. Collagen was stained with Elastica van Gieson stain, converted to a gray-scale image, and displayed in a 256-step histogram. The median gray-scale median (GSM) was used as the collagen content. The degree of calcification was defined by the hematoxylin-eosin stain as follows: "0:" no calcification, "1:" scattered microcalcification, or "2:" calcification greater than 1 mm or more than 2% of the total calcification. Carotid echocardiographic findings, specifically echoluminance or the brightness of the narrowest lesion of the plaque, classified as hypo-, iso-, or hyper-echoic by comparison with the intima-media complex surrounding the plaque, and clinical data were reviewed.
resultsPlaque hardness was significantly negatively correlated with GSM [Spearman's correlation coefficient: -0.7137 (p < 0.0001)]: the harder the plaque, the higher the collagen content. There were significant differences between plaque hardness and degree of calcification between "0" and "2" (p = 0.0206). For plaque hardness and echoluminance (hypo-iso-hyper), significant differences were found between hypo-iso (p = 0.0220), hypo-hyper (p = 0.0006), and iso-hyper (p = 0.0015): the harder the plaque, the higher the luminance. In single regression analysis, GSM, sex, and diabetes mellitus were significant variables, and in multiple regression analysis, only GSM was extracted as a significant variable.
conclusionsPlaque hardness was associated with a higher amount of collagen, which is the main component of the fibrous cap. Greater plaque hardness was associated with increased plaque stability. The degree of calcification may also be associated with plaque hardness.
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.