MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105105190 · doi:10.1136/jnnp-2013-306573.78

REVERSIBLE LEUKOENCEPHALOPATHY AS A PRESENTATION OF CEREBRAL AMYLOID ANGIOPATHY

2013· article· en· W2105105190 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James B Lilleker, Joseph A. Vassallo, Martin Punter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological Complications and Syndromes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypertensive encephalopathyHyperintensityNeurological examinationBlood pressureCortical blindnessCerebral amyloid angiopathyTemporal lobeOccipital lobeStroke (engine)Physical examinationLeukoencephalopathyAnesthesiaRadiologyMagnetic resonance imagingSurgeryEpilepsyInternal medicineDementia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 73 year old man with a past medical history of hypertension, osteoathritis and asthma presented to the local district general hospital with recurrent episodes of spontaneously resolving encephalopathy. The initial presentation was characterised by acute confusion and visual hallucinations followed by a generalised tonic–clonic seizure. On examination his blood pressure was 215/115 mmHg. Neurological examination did not reveal any lateralising signs but the patient was found to be encephalopathic with a Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) score of 9/30. Routine blood tests were unremarkable. A CT brain scan showed features suggestive of acute infarct in the right temporal lobe. The working diagnosis of the attending physicians was acute stroke with secondary seizure. Treatment with aspirin and sodium valproate was commenced. The patient improved substantially during the 4 days of admission. His blood pressure stabilised to around 150/80 mmHg and a MOCA score on the day of discharge was 22/30. One month after initial presentation, the patient was admitted again with a recurrence of encephalopathy. The blood pressure was again raised at 210/100 mmHg, Examination showed right sided weakness in combination with a predominantly receptive aphasia. Routine bloods were again normal. A further CT brain scan showed oedema in the right temporal lobe. An MRI brain scan showed significant white matter hyperintensity changes consistent with oedema in both temporal lobes with sparing of the medial portions bilaterally and a small established watershed infarction in the left parieto–occipital region. Multiple petechial haemorrhages were noted within the temporal lobe lesions best demonstrated on T2* sequences. No abnormal enhancement was seen after administration of Gadolinium. A lumbar puncture showed CSF with normal constituents and no oligoclonal bands. Within 5 days the patient9s symptoms spontaneously improved and he returned to his baseline cognitive function. Delayed repeat MRI scan showed radiological resolution of the temporal lobe white matter lesions with persistence of the haemorrhagic areas. The unifying diagnosis was thought to be reversible Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy (CAA) leukoencephalopathy syndrome. This is a rare condition which has been described in a limited number of case reports in which accompanying histology from brain biopsy has also been available. This is characterised by features of CAA with or without associated inflammation.1 This case, given the spontaneous resolution without immunosuppression, is likely to represent the non–inflammatory form of the syndrome. It is hypothesised that in this form, CAA causes altered vascular autoregulation and impaired blood–brain barrier integrity in the face of precipitating factors such as hypertension.2 This pathological process is similar to that proposed for the Posterior Reversible Encephalopathy Syndrome (PRES) and it is likely that in this patient the CAA predisposed the patient to developing a PRES like syndrome.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & PsychiatrySame topicNeurological Complications and SyndromesFrench-language works237,207