Relationship between cerebral microbleeds location and cognitive impairment in patients with ischemic cerebrovascular disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cerebral microbleeds (CMBs) have been identified as an important manifestation and diagnostic marker of cerebrovascular disease, but there are also some controversies about the impact of CMBs on cognition. The current cross-sectional study aimed to clarify the relationship between CMBs and cognitive impairment in patients with ischemic cerebrovascular disease. One hundred and fifty patients with lacunar infarction or transient ischemic attack were screened, and all of them were scanned by brain MRI. In the end, 125 patients who were divided into a CMBs group and a non-CMBs group were selected and completed the cognitive tests. Cognitive Function Assessment was performed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment scale. Images of CMBs were assessed using a susceptibility-weighted imaging measure. Associations between cognitive function and the location of CMBs were determined. There was no significant difference in the demographic and clinical features between the two groups of patients. Compared with participants with no CMBs, the CMBs group showed a greater impairment in cognitive parameters and specifically in performance on three cognitive domains: visual space and executive function, memory, and abstract thinking. Basal ganglia-thalamic was associated with memory and visual space and executive function. Relationships between cortical-subcortical and abstract thinking became significant. Furthermore, the mixed region was related to memory, abstract thinking, and visual space and executive function. In summary, patients with CMBs had a greater impairment in cognitive parameters in ischemic cerebrovascular disease and CMBs location was associated with different cognitive parameters, adding to our understanding of the cognitive effects of CMBs in cerebrovascular disease.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".