MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307552890 · doi:10.3390/brainsci12111445

Analysis of Risk Factors for Cerebral Microbleeds and the Relationship between Cerebral Microbleeds and Cognitive Impairment

2022· article· en· W4307552890 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Huiwen Zheng, Yong Yuan, Zuohui Zhang, Jing Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive impairmentCognitionMedicineNeurosciencePsychologyCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(1) Background: Cerebral microbleeds (CMBs) are attracting increasing attention. Nevertheless, the risk factors for CMBs remain poorly identified, and the relationship between CMBs and cognitive impairment is still up for debate; (2) Objective: The present study analyzed the risk factors for CMBs and probed into the potential correlations between the presence, number, and location of CMBs and cognition; (3) Methods: This study enrolled 406 subjects who underwent both brain 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging scans and cognitive testing. Spearman correlation was used to assess the relationship between the number of CMBs and cognition. Multiple linear regression was utilized to analyze the relationship between the regions of CMBs and each cognitive domain; (4) Results: Multivariate logistic regression analysis results showed that age (odds ratio (OR) = 1.045, 95% confidence interval (95%CI; 1.009, 1.082)), smoking (OR = 3.604, 95%CI (1.995, 6.509)), hypertension (OR = 3.607, 95%CI (2.204, 5.901)), total cholesterol (OR = 0.611, 95%CI (0.467, 0.799)), and Amyloid-β1-42 (Aβ1-42) (OR = 1.028, 95%CI (1.018, 1.037)) were the influencing factors of CMBs. Education years (OR = 0.959, 95%CI (0.930, 0.988)), white matter lesions (OR = 2.687, 95%CI (1.782, 4.051)), and CMBs (OR = 21.246, 95%CI (5.728, 21.576)) were the risk factors for cognitive impairment. Hypertension increased the probability of deep CMBs (OR = 12.54, 95%CI (2.21, 71.28)), while Aβ1-42 elevated the probability of lobar CMBs (OR = 1.02, 95%CI (1.00, 1.03)). There was a linear correlation between the number of CMBs and Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores (r = −0.756, p < 0.001). However, CMBs in each region were not related to specific cognitive domains (p > 0.05), except CMBs in the mixed group that were negatively correlated with attention (OR = −0.669, 95%CI (−0.034, −5.270)); (5) Conclusions: Taken together, serum Aβ1-42 levels are related to the presence of CMBs. Cognitive impairment is correlated with the number of CMBs rather than their region. These findings suggest that CMBs play a role in cognitive impairment and that CMBs mark the presence of diffuse vascular injury and neurodegenerative brain damage.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain SciencesSame topicIntracerebral and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage ResearchFrench-language works237,207