Vessel Wall MRI to Differentiate Between Reversible Cerebral Vasoconstriction Syndrome and Central Nervous System Vasculitis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Prospective differentiation between reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome and central nervous system vasculitis can be challenging. We hypothesized that high-resolution vessel wall MRI would demonstrate arterial wall enhancement in central nervous system vasculitis but not in reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome. METHODS: We identified all patients with multifocal segmental narrowing of large intracranial arteries who had high-resolution vessel wall MRI and follow-up angiography at our institute over a 4-year period and performed a detailed chart review. RESULTS: Three patients lacked arterial wall enhancement, and these all had reversal of arterial narrowing within 3 months. Four patients demonstrated arterial wall enhancement, and these had persistent or progressive arterial narrowing at a median follow-up of 17 months (range, 6-36 months) with final diagnoses of central nervous system vasculitis (3) and cocaine vasculopathy (1). CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary results suggest that high-resolution contrast-enhanced vessel wall MRI may enable differentiation between reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome and central nervous system vasculitis.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it