Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 509

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

New England medical center posterior circulation registry

Caplan, Louis R., Wityk, Robert J., Glass, Thomas A., Tapia, Jorge, Pazdera, Ladislav, Chang, Hui‐Meng, Teal, Phillip, Dashe, John F., Chaves, Claudia J., Breen, Joan C., Vemmos, Kostas, Amarenco, Pierre, Tettenborn, Barbara, Leary, Megan, Estol, Conrad, Dewitt, L. Dana, Pessin, Michael S.·2004·Annals of Neurology

Abstract

Among 407 New England Medical Center Posterior Circulation registry patients, 59% had strokes without transient ischemic attacks (TIAs), 24% had TIAs then strokes, and 16% had only TIAs. Embolism was the commonest stroke mechanism (40% of patients including 24% cardiac origin, 14% intraarterial, 2% cardiac and arterial sources). In 32% large artery occlusive lesions caused hemodynamic brain ischemia. Infarcts most often included the distal posterior circulation territory (rostral brainstem, superior cerebellum and occipital and temporal lobes); the proximal (medulla and posterior inferior cerebellum) and middle (pons and anterior inferior cerebellum) territories were equally involved. Severe occlusive lesions (>50% stenosis) involved more than one large artery in 148 patients; 134 had one artery site involved unilaterally or bilaterally. The commonest occlusive sites were: extracranial vertebral artery (52 patients, 15 bilateral) intracranial vertebral artery (40 patients, 12 bilateral), basilar artery (46 patients). Intraarterial embolism was the commonest mechanism of brain infarction in patients with vertebral artery occlusive disease. Thirty‐day mortality was 3.6%. Embolic mechanism, distal territory location, and basilar artery occlusive disease carried the poorest prognosis. The best outcome was in patients who had multiple arterial occlusive sites; they had position‐sensitive TIAs during months to years. Ann Neurol 2004;56:389–398

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ana.20204

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 509

Metadata

Authors
Caplan, L. R., Wityk, R. J., Glass, T. A., Tapia, J., Pazdera, L., Chang, H., Teal, P., Dashe, J. F., Chaves, C. J., Breen, J. C., Vemmos, K., Amarenco, P., Tettenborn, B., Leary, M., Estol, C., Dewitt, L. D., & Pessin, M. S.
Venue
Annals of Neurology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-08-31
Volume
56
Issue
3
Pages
389-398
ISSN
  • 0364-5134 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-8249
OpenAlex
W2093432039
Cited by
509
References
2
FWCI
9.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: New England medical center posterior circulation registry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ana.20204
The paper
Caplan, L. R., Wityk, R. J., Glass, T. A., Tapia, J., Pazdera, L., Chang, H., Teal, P., Dashe, J. F., Chaves, C. J., Breen, J. C., Vemmos, K., Amarenco, P., Tettenborn, B., Leary, M., Estol, C., Dewitt, L. D., & Pessin, M. S. (2004). New England medical center posterior circulation registry. Annals of Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.20204

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.