ArticleNeuroradiology2026
Morphological and clinical predictors of symptomatic carotid webs: a cross-validated analysis of 124 webs.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCarotid webs (CWs) are an underrecognized cause of cryptogenic ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA). Morphological characteristics are believed to influence their potential to become symptomatic. We aimed to develop and internally validate a reliable predictive model for symptomatic CWs.
methodsWe conducted an institutional retrospective study including patients with CWs identified on Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA). Demographic, clinical, and morphological data were extracted. Symptomatic CWs were defined by a history of stroke or TIA without a more likely cause based on TOAST criteria. To ensure robust internal validation and mitigate overfitting, 5-fold cross-validation was employed. Univariable logistic regression was applied to all variables, followed by multivariable analysis including predictors with p < 0.15. Model performance was assessed using the cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC).
resultsA total of 124 CWs from 115 patients were identified, comprising 23 symptomatic and 101 asymptomatic webs (identified in 92 patients). The symptomatic group had higher rates of hypertension (91% vs. 59%, p = 0.003), hyperlipidemia (91% vs. 61%, p = 0.006), and CWs that were longer (3.0 mm [IQR 2.5-3.6] vs. 2.3 mm [IQR 2.0-3.0], p = 0.002) and thicker (1.5 mm [IQR 1.0-2.8] vs. 1.0 mm [IQR 0.9-1.5], p = 0.008). In the multivariable model, female sex (OR: 4.11, 95% CI: 1.31-15.3, p = 0.022), hypertension (OR: 7.58, 95% CI: 1.86-52.4, p = 0.013), and stenosis (OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.02-1.11, p = 0.003) were independent predictors of symptomatic status. The model yielded a 5-fold cross-validated AUC of 0.78, with a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 60% at the optimal probability threshold.
conclusionFemale sex, hypertension, and local stenosis are independently associated with symptomatic CWs. This cross-validated model provides a framework for identifying high-risk carotid webs and may aid in clinical risk stratification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42247135What 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.