Quantifying blood‐brain barrier leakage in small vessel disease: Review and consensus recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cerebral small vessel disease (cSVD) comprises pathological processes of the small vessels in the brain that may manifest clinically as stroke, cognitive impairment, dementia, or gait disturbance. It is generally accepted that endothelial dysfunction, including blood-brain barrier (BBB) failure, is pivotal in the pathophysiology. Recent years have seen increasing use of imaging, primarily dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, to assess BBB leakage, but there is considerable variability in the approaches and findings reported in the literature. Although dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging is well established, challenges emerge in cSVD because of the subtle nature of BBB impairment. The purpose of this work, authored by members of the HARNESS Initiative, is to provide an in-depth review and position statement on magnetic resonance imaging measurement of subtle BBB leakage in clinical research studies, with aspects requiring further research identified. We further aim to provide information and consensus recommendations for new investigators wishing to study BBB failure in cSVD and dementia.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".