The Spot Sign Is More Common in the Absence of Multiple Prior Microbleeds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Mural thickening and permeability changes in patients with amyloid angiopathy (CAA) and chronic hypertension are implicated in the pathophysiology of multiple, chronic subclinical microbleeds. The Spot sign, contrast extravasation on CT angiography, predicts hematoma expansion and is presumed to represent acute vessel damage. We hypothesize that the Spot sign is more common in patients without multiple prior chronic microbleeds. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted of 59 patients presenting within 6 hours of primary intracranial hemorrhage onset undergoing CT angiography and MRI. CT angiography spot sign presence was documented blinded to MRI. Hematoma expansion was defined as >6 mL or 30% enlargement. The Boston criteria were applied to microbleed interpretation dichotomizing subjects into probable and negative CAA. Basal ganglia, thalamic, and brain stem microbleed location were interpreted as chronic hypertensive pattern. Univariate logistic regression and ordinal logistic regression analysis identified significant predictive factors between spot-positive and -negative patients or microbleed pattern. RESULTS: The incidence of spot positivity was 42%, 22%, and 0% for CAA-negative, chronic hypertensive, and CAA-positive patients, respectively (P=0.01). CAA-negative patients had higher baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (P=0.039), larger follow-up hematoma volume (P=0.02), and poorer Rankin score (P=0.049) than chronic hypertensive or CAA-positive patients. After age adjustment, spot-positive (P=0.023), age-related white matter change (P=0.041), number of microbleeds (P<0.0001), and modified Rankin score (P=0.027) remained significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Boston criteria-defined CAA-negative status demonstrates the highest risk of spot positivity compared with patients with probable CAA and chronic hypertension.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".