Cerebral Microbleeds in Multiple Sclerosis Evaluated on Susceptibility-weighted Images and Quantitative Susceptibility Maps: A Case-Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To assess cerebral microbleed (CMB) prevalence in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) and associations with clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods CMBs are associated with aging and neurodegenerative disorders. The prevalence of CMBs has not previously been well established. In this study, 445 patients with MS (266 with relapsing-remitting MS, 138 with secondary progressive MS, and 41 with primary progressive MS), 45 patients with CIS, 51 patients with other neurological diseases, and 177 healthy control subjects (HCs) underwent 3-T magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and clinical examinations. A subset of 168 patients with MS and 50 HCs underwent neuropsychological testing. Number of CMBs was assessed on susceptibility-weighted minimum intensity projections by using the Microbleed Anatomic Rating Scale; volume was calculated by using quantitative susceptibility maps. Differences between groups were analyzed with the χ2 test, Fisher exact test, Student t test, and analysis of variance; associations of CMBs with clinical and other MR imaging outcomes were explored with correlation and regression analyses. Because CMB frequency increases with age, prevalence was investigated in participants at least 50 years of age and younger than 50 years. Results Significantly more patients with MS than HCs had CMBs (19.8% vs 7.4%, respectively; P = .01) in the group at least 50 years old. A trend toward greater presence of CMBs was found in patients with MS (P = .016) and patients with CIS who were younger than 50 years (P = .039) compared with HCs. In regression analysis adjusted for age, hypertension, and normalized brain volume, increased number of CMBs was significantly associated with increased physical disability in the MS population (R2 = 0.23, P < .0001). In correlation analysis, increased number of CMBs was significantly associated with deteriorated auditory and verbal learning and memory (P = .006) and visual information processing speed trends (P = .049) in patients with MS. Conclusion Monitoring CMBs may be relevant in patients with MS and CIS at higher risk for developing cognitive and physical disability. © RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".