Angiography of primary central nervous system angiitis of childhood: conventional angiography versus magnetic resonance angiography at presentation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To systematically analyze conventional angiographic (CA) features of children with primary central nervous system angiitis (cPACNS), to compare and correlate CA and MR angiography (MRA) lesion characteristics, and to define the sensitivity and specificity of MRA with CA as a reference standard. METHODS: A retrospective, single-center cohort study of consecutive patients with cPACNS was performed. Patients with CA and MRA studies at diagnosis were included. Imaging studies were blindly reviewed by 2 neuroradiologists using a standard analysis protocol. CA and MRA studies were compared using nonparametric analysis. RESULTS: Of 45 patients with MRA at diagnosis, there were 25 for whom CA and MRA studies were performed within 1 month of each other. These comprised the study group. The CA distribution of lesions was multifocal (76%) and proximal (86%) (P < .05) with a trend toward unilaterality (P = .06) with anterior circulation involvement (P = .08). The sensitivity and specificity of MRA for CA abnormality was 70% and 98%, respectively. There was no significant difference between MRA and CA for lesion detection or characterization (P = .87), and the modalities showed a fair correlation (kappa = 0.4). CONCLUSION: Angiographic lesions are multifocal and occur proximally and unilaterally within the anterior circulation. There is no significant difference in the ability of MRA to detect and characterize lesions when compared with CA.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".