ArticleJVS-vascular science2025
Atherosclerotic plaque instability in symptomatic non-significant carotid stenoses.
Article in JVS-vascular science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A fusion model of deep learning and conventional features based on computed tomography angiography of carotid plaque for predicting the risk of acute ischemic stroke.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis is recommended for patients with >70% stenosis, but not in those with <50%. Because non-significant, low-degree stenoses may still cause strokes, refined risk stratification is necessary, which could be improved by assessing biological features of plaque instability. To challenge risk-stratification based on luminal narrowing, we compared biological features of carotid plaques from symptomatic patients with low-degree (<50%) vs high-degree (>70%) stenosis and explored potential mechanisms behind plaque instability in low-degree stenoses. Methods: Endarterectomy specimens were taken from symptomatic patients with high-degree (n = 204) and low-degree (n = 34) stenosis, all part of the Biobank of Karolinska Endarterectomies. Patient demographics, image-derived plaque morphology, and gene expression analyses of extracted lesions were used for comparisons. Plaque biology was assessed by transcriptomics using dimensionality reduction, differential gene expression, and gene-set enrichment analyses. Immunohistochemistry was used to study proteins corresponding to upregulated genes. Results: The demographics of the two groups were statistically similar. Calcification, lipid-rich necrotic core, intraplaque hemorrhage, plaque burden, and fibrous cap thickness were similar in both groups, whereas the sum of lipid-rich necrotic core and intraplaque hemorrhage was higher ( Conclusions: Plaques from symptomatic patients with non-significant low-degree carotid stenoses showed morphologic and biological features of atherosclerotic plaque instability that were comparable to plaques from patients with high-degree stenoses, emphasizing the need for improved stroke risk stratification for intervention in all patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis irrespective of luminal narrowing. An increased expression of hypoxia-inducible factor 3A in low-degree stenotic lesions suggested mechanisms of plaque instability associated with tissue hypoxia and plaque angiogenesis, but the exact role of hypoxia-inducible factor 3A in this process remains to be determined. Clinical relevance: Carotid plaques from symptomatic patients with <50% stenosis show morphologic and biological features of plaque instability, comparable to high-degree stenosis, which emphasizes the need for improved stroke risk stratification beyond stenosis severity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.