Abstract T P407: Functional MRI-measured Vascular Reactivity is Preserved in CADASIL, but not Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Previous studies have demonstrated that the magnitude of the blood oxygen dependent level (BOLD) functional MRI (fMRI) response to visual stimulation is reduced in cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) relative to controls, reflecting impaired vascular reactivity. We wished to determine if BOLD responses were reduced in an associated small vessel disease, cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL). Methods: BOLD fMRI data were collected using a visual stimulus (contrast-reversing checkerboard) and motor task (finger-tapping). BOLD responses in the visual cortex (visual stimulus) and motor cortex (motor task) were compared between 5 CADASIL (55.0 ±12.9 years; 3 females), 18 CAA (72.1 ± 7.2 years; 6 females) and 22 control subjects (67.0 ±10.0 years; 9 females). One-way analysis of variance and multivariable-adjusted generalized models, controlling for age and hypertension, were used to compare groups with Tukey-Kramer’s correction for multiple comparisons. Results: BOLD response varied by group for the visual stimulus (p<0.001) but not the motor task (p=0.48). After adjusting for age and hypertension, the estimated mean visual cortex BOLD response was 3.91% in CADASIL (95% confidence interval, CI, 3.12-4.70%), 1.71% in CAA (95% CI 1.23-2.20%), and 2.84% (95% CI 2.44-3.24%) in controls. In CADASIL, the BOLD response was greater than in CAA (p<0.001) and controls (p=0.04). In CAA, the BOLD response was less than controls (p=0.009). No significant differences were observed for the motor task (p=0.51). Conclusions: We observed increased and unchanged BOLD responses in the visual and motor cortices of CADASIL patients, respectively. This suggests that cortical blood flow regulation by neuronal activity may be relatively preserved in CADASIL, in contrast to CAA where occipital vascular reactivity is impaired. Preserved reactivity in CADASIL may be because damage is primarily subcortical, whereas increased activation may reflect compensatory mechanisms for subcortical damage.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".