Cerebral revascularization in cerebral proliferative angiopathy: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVECerebral proliferative angiopathy (CPA) is considered a discrete vascular malformation of the brain separate from classical brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). It has unique angiographic characteristics and has been hypothesized to result from chronic cortical ischemia and perinidal oligemia. Treatment with cerebral revascularization has been proposed in an attempt to disrupt regional hypoperfusion and interrupt the angiogenesis that defines CPA. A systematic review of the literature pertaining to the role of cerebral revascularization may highlight a treatment paradigm for this rare disease.METHODSA systematic review was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE and Embase were searched from inception for papers relating to CPA. Included articles were categorized according to methodology (case series or imaging study) and treatment modality (conservative, radiation, endovascular, or revascularization). A synthesis was compiled summarizing the current evidence regarding cerebral revascularization in CPA.RESULTSThe initial search revealed 43 articles, of which 28 studies met the inclusion criteria. Nine studies were identified that described imaging findings, which suggested hemodynamic dysregulation and perinidal impairments in the cerebrovascular reserve could be identified compared to unaffected hemispheres and classical brain AVMs. Six studies including 7 patients undergoing indirect forms of cerebral revascularization were identified. Clinical and radiological outcomes following revascularization were favorable in all but one study.CONCLUSIONSA small body of radiological and clinical studies has emerged, suggesting that CPA is a response to perinidal oligemia. While the long-term clinical efficacy of revascularization remains unclear, early results suggest that this may be a novel treatment paradigm for patients with CPA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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".