Local Ranking Problem on the BrowseGraph

The "Local Ranking Problem" (LRP) is related to the computation of a centrality-like rank on a local graph, where the scores of the nodes could significantly differ from the ones computed on the global graph. Previous work has studied LRP on the hyperlink graph but never on the BrowseGraph, namely a graph where nodes are webpages and edges are browsing transitions. Recently, this graph has received more and more attention in many different tasks such as ranking, prediction and recommendation. However, a web-server has only the browsing traffic performed on its pages (local BrowseGraph) and, as a consequence, the local computation can lead to estimation errors, which hinders the increasing number of applications in the state of the art. Also, although the divergence between the local and global ranks has been measured, the possibility of estimating such divergence using only local knowledge has been mainly overlooked. These aspects are of great interest for online service providers who want to: (i) gauge their ability to correctly assess the importance of their resources only based on their local knowledge, and (ii) take into account real user browsing fluxes that better capture the actual user interest than the static hyperlink network. We study the LRP problem on a BrowseGraph from a large news provider, considering as subgraphs the aggregations of browsing traces of users coming from different domains. We show that the distance between rankings can be accurately predicted based only on structural information of the local graph, being able to achieve an average rank correlation as high as 0.8

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2): a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86–1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91–1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme