Striped occipital cortex and intragyral hemorrhage: Novel magnetic resonance imaging markers for cerebral amyloid angiopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: To investigate whether a striped occipital cortex and intragyral hemorrhage, two markers recently detected on ultra-high-field 7-tesla-magnetic resonance imaging in hereditary cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), also occur in sporadic CAA (sCAA) or non-sCAA intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). METHODS: *-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. We assessed the association between the markers, other CAA-magnetic resonance imaging markers and clinical features. RESULTS: We included 33 patients with sCAA (median age 70 years) and 29 patients with non-sCAA-ICH (median age 58 years). Striped occipital cortex was detected in one (3%) patient with severe sCAA. Five intragyral hemorrhages were found in four (12%) sCAA patients. The markers were absent in the non-sCAA-ICH group. Patients with intragyral hemorrhages had more lobar ICHs (median count 6.5 vs. 1.0), lobar microbleeds (median count >50 vs. 15), and lower median cognitive scores (Mini Mental State Exam: 20 vs. 28, Montreal Cognitive Assessment: 18 vs. 24) compared with patients with sCAA without intragyral hemorrhage. In 12 (36%) patients, sCAA diagnosis was changed to mixed-type small vessel disease due to deep bleeds previously unobserved on lower field-magnetic resonance imaging. CONCLUSION: Whereas a striped occipital cortex is rare in sCAA, 12% of patients with sCAA have intragyral hemorrhages. Intragyral hemorrhages seem to be related to advanced disease and their absence in patients with non-sCAA-ICH could suggest specificity for CAA.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".