Abstract WMP95: Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy Patients With Convexity Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Present Higher Risk of Subsequent Hemorrhage Than Those With Lobar Intracranial Hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Acute convexity subarachnoid hemorrhage (cSAH) is increasingly recognized as a marker of cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA). Little is known about the risk of subsequent hemorrhage in such CAA presentation, whereas CAA-related lobar intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is associated with a high risk of recurrence. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcome among patients with an acute CAA related- cSAH to those with an acute CAA-related lobar ICH. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that the risk of subsequent hemorrhage is different between patients with acute cSAH and lobar ICH related to CAA. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical outcomes (death, subsequent transient focal neurological episodes (TFNE), rates of ICH and acute cSAH) of 45 consecutive patients (75 ± 7 years) with an acute cSAH related to probable CAA compared to 70 consecutive patients (78 ± 7 years) with an acute lobar ICH meeting the Boston criteria for probable CAA. Results: cSAH-patients presented essentially with TFNE (84.4% vs 0%; p<0.001) whereas ICH-patients had a persistent neurological deficit (98.6% vs 15.6%; p<0.001). Five patients with lobar ICH died in the first days. Thirty nine cSAH-patients and 60 lobar ICH-patients had available follow-up data. The mean time of follow-up (± SD) was 364 ± 358 days. Mortality did not differ between cSAH-patients and ICH-patients who survived (10.2 % vs 16.7%; p = 0.38). Patients with cSAH had a higher rate of TFNE (48.7 % vs 0 %; p<0.001) and acute cSAH recurrence (20.5 % vs 1.7 %; p = 0.002). In the other hand, 20.5 % of cSAH-patients presented a subsequent ICH, not different from patients with acute ICH (15.0 %; p = 0.45). Conclusions: In the context of CAA, patients with acute cSAH present more clinical recurrences than lobar ICH-patients, due to higher risk of subsequent TFNE and acute cSAH. Although the clinical presentation of cSAH-patients may appear benign, their outcome regarding the risk of incident ICH and mortality, does not seem different from CAA-related lobar ICH survivors.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".