Imaging‑based models for predicting cerebrovascular complications of carotid stenosis.

Authors

Baobao Li, Xiangrong Du, Yuan Liu, Hongtao Zhang, Shitong Liu, Shengshu Wang, Xihai Zhao, Fugeng Sheng, Mingming Lu, Jianming Cai

Published in

The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. Volume 9. Pages CD016391. Sep 09, 2026. Epub Sep 09, 2026.

Abstract

This is a protocol for a Cochrane review (prognosis). The objectives are as follows: Primary objective To systematically review and critically appraise multivariable prognostic models developed for adults (≥ 18 years) with carotid stenosis in which imaging biomarkers (e.g. plaque characteristics derived from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), or ultrasound) constitute the core predictors. The primary focus is to evaluate the predictive performance of these models for cerebrovascular complications - specifically ipsilateral ischaemic stroke and transient ischaemic attack (TIA) - which are the clinical outcomes to be predicted. Where feasible, we will summarise and compare the models' discrimination (C‑statistic/area under the curve (AUC)) and calibration (calibration‑in‑the‑large, calibration slope, observed‑to‑expected ratio) across studies, and assess their potential for clinical application and external validation. For the purpose of defining symptomatic carotid stenosis as an eligibility criterion and subgroup variable, we will include studies that also considered retinal ischaemia (e.g. retinal embolism, amaurosis fugax) as a qualifying event. Secondary objectives To describe the combinations of imaging markers, modelling techniques, sample sizes, and variable‑selection strategies used in the development of the included models To evaluate the performance of these models for additional secondary clinical outcomes: plaque progression or regression, incident high‑risk imaging features, and the transition from asymptomatic to symptomatic disease To explore whether predictive performance differs according to imaging modality (MRI versus CT versus contrast‑enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)) or technical protocol (e.g. 3 T versus 1.5 T, spectral CT versus conventional CT) For studies that report both cerebrovascular and broader cardiovascular outcomes (major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, etc.), we will only extract the performance metrics relating to cerebrovascular events for the primary analysis. Performance metrics for cardiovascular outcomes will be considered exploratory and will not form part of the main synthesis.

PMID:
42713886
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 09 Sep 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.