MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512138204 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.116.013418

Cerebral Microbleeds and Cortical Superficial Siderosis in Patients Presenting With Minor Cerebrovascular Events

2016· article· en· W2512138204 on OpenAlexafffund
Charlotte Zerna, Jayesh Modi, Ashkan Shoamanesh, Shelagh B. Coutts, Eric E. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Research
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSuperficial siderosisMedicineCerebral amyloid angiopathyMinor strokeSiderosisStroke (engine)PathologyCardiologyDementiaDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Transient focal neurological episodes occur in cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) and can mimic transient ischemic attack (TIA). Risk factors and outcomes of minor ischemic stroke or TIA might differ in patients with and without cerebral microbleeds (CMBs), including CAA-consistent lobar CMB. METHODS: Baseline magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was analyzed for CMBs and cortical superficial siderosis in 416 patients in the prospective computed tomography and MRI in the CATCH study (Triage of TIA and Minor Cerebrovascular Events to Identify High Risk Patients). Clinical symptoms, baseline characteristics, recurrence, and 90-day modified Rankin Scale were prospectively collected. MRI white-matter hyperintensity was measured using the Fazekas scale. RESULTS: CMBs were detected in 65 (15.6%) and cortical superficial siderosis in 11 patients (2.6%). Lobar CMBs were present in 49 (11.8%). In multivariable logistic regression adjusted for risk factors and age, subcortical Fazekas score was associated with lobar CMB (odds ratio, 2.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-3.48; P=0.006). Forty-two patients (10.1%) had lobar-only CMBs with or without cortical superficial siderosis consistent with modified Boston criteria for possible/probable CAA. The possible/probable CAA pattern was not predictive of recurrent TIA (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-3.31; P=0.41), stroke (odds ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-5.99; P=0.79), or 90-day modified Rankin Scale score ≥2 (odds ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-3.07; P=0.42). CONCLUSIONS: CMBs in TIA and minor stroke are moderately common but do not predict recurrence or 90-day outcome. CAA-related transient focal neurological episodes and TIA have overlapping clinical symptoms, suggesting that MRI may be needed for differentiation.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations26
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage ResearchFrench-language works237,207