Decreased Basal Ganglia Volume in Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is a common pathology of the leptomeningeal and cortical small vessels associated with hemorrhagic and non-hemorrhagic brain injury. Given previous evidence for CAA-related loss of cortical thickness and white matter volume, we hypothesized that CAA might also cause tissue loss in the basal ganglia. METHODS: We compared basal ganglia volumes expressed as a percentage of total intracranial volume (pBGV) of non-demented patients with sporadic and hereditary CAA to age-matched healthy control (HC) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) cohorts. RESULTS: Patients with sporadic CAA had lower pBGV (n=80, 1.16%±0.14%) compared to HC (n=80, 1.30%±0.13%, P<0.0001) and AD patients (n=80, 1.23%±0.11%, P=0.001). Similarly, patients with hereditary CAA demonstrated lower pBGV (n=25, 1.26%±0.17%) compared to their matched HC (n=25, 1.36%±0.15%, P=0.036). Using a measurement of normalized basal ganglia width developed for analysis of clinical-grade magnetic resonance images, we found smaller basal ganglia width in patients with CAA-related lobar intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH; n=93, 12.35±1.47) compared to age-matched patients with hypertension-related deep ICH (n=93, 13.46±1.51, P<0.0001) or HC (n=93, 15.45±1.22, P<0.0001). Within the sporadic CAA research cohort, decreased basal ganglia volume was independently correlated with greater cortical gray matter atrophy (r=0.45, P<0.0001), increased basal ganglia fractional anisotropy (r=-0.36, P=0.001), and worse performance on language processing (r=0.35, P=0.003), but not with cognitive tests of executive function or processing speed. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest an independent effect of CAA on basal ganglia tissue loss, indicating a novel mechanism for CAA-related brain injury and neurologic dysfunction.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".