An astro-expert on them is Bernadette Brady-- Google her and see what comes up.
When I started promoting and writing about the Fixed Stars everywhere i could as I was very excited about their value in astrology work; no one was using them or very few Astrologers. Others would argue that if they were connected to planets would try to tell you they don't count. Even William Lily used them religiously., especially certain ones including the Persian Royal Stars.
Bernadette Brady was one of those people who argued against use with planets, but since then, and after the late Astrologer Rosenberg's book and her work on them all those years via personal examination (always the best way) , she apparently changed her mind.
That was good to see, because everyone can learn once we apply ourselves and open our minds to examine them ourselves, they are hard to deny. Back then she was only promoting the Parans period.
But as for the OP question, - I'd not consider any of the aspect formations except with the Planets. That makes more sense to me (imo) But then again, since she did not change this page, perhaps she still only considers the Parans stars.
http://www.bernadettebrady.com/research.html
Fixed Stars in Astrology - by the turning of the earth
My work in fixed stars is focused on using parans
I know I had a knock down drag out (just j/k of course), debate when I started promoting the fixed stars with the planets with astronomer/scientist/owner Alois. He insisted that Algol was not to be counted because it is below the Ecliptic. We also disagreed heartily on the Vedic Sidereal astrology worth & value, but
eventually he came around on his forum pages. I'm talking years ago.
I think he too has changed his tune. That was a while back,,...and after all, he has Algol rising in his natal chart.
Being a public figure, it's online and easily seen.