Prevalence of non-contrast CT abnormalities in adults with reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS) is characterised by severe, recurrent thunderclap headaches (TCHs) and vasoconstriction of cerebral arteries that resolve within 3 months. Abnormalities on non-contrast CT (NCCT) such as ischaemic strokes, intracerebral haemorrhage and subarachnoid haemorrhages are frequently observed on brain imaging of patients with RCVS though their prevalence varies considerably between studies. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to estimate the prevalence of NCCT abnormalities seen on neuroimaging of adult patients with RCVS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search the Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library databases for studies on the prevalence of NCCT abnormalities on neuroimaging of patients with RCVS. Search results will be screened for eligibility by title and abstract. Suitable studies will be fully reviewed and relevant data extracted using a data abstraction form. The studies will be assessed for methodological quality, risk of bias and heterogeneity. Prevalence estimates across studies will be pooled using a random-effects model and subgroup analysis will be performed to assess the impact of age, sex, publication year and study design on prevalence of vascular lesions. Sensitivity analysis will be used to investigate the robustness of the findings. This protocol has been devised using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols 2015 checklist. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethics is not required as primary data will not be collected. The findings of this study will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020190637.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".