Cerebral blood flow in patients recovered from mild COVID‐19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Cerebral hypoperfusion has been described in both severe and mild forms of symptomatic Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. The purpose of this study was to investigate global and regional cerebral blood flow (CBF) in asymptomatic COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Cases with mild COVID-19 infection and age-, sex-, and race-matched healthy controls were drawn from the Aging Brain Consortium at The University of South Carolina data repository. Demographics, risk factors, and data from the Montreal Cognitive Assessment were collected. Mean CBF values for gray matter (GM), white matter (WM), and the whole brain were calculated by averaging CBF values of standard space-normalized CBF image values falling within GM and WM masks. Whole brain region of interest-based analyses were used to create standardized CBF maps and explore differences between groups. RESULTS: Twenty-eight cases with prior mild COVID-19 infection were compared with 28 controls. Whole-brain CBF (46.7 ± 5.6 vs. 49.3 ± 3.7, p = .05) and WM CBF (29.3 ± 2.6 vs. 31.0 ± 1.6, p = .03) were noted to be significantly lower in COVID-19 cases as compared to controls. Predictive models based on these data predicted COVID-19 group membership with a high degree of accuracy (85.2%, p < .001), suggesting CBF patterns are an imaging marker of mild COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSION: In this study, lower WM CBF, as well as widespread regional CBF changes identified using quantitative MRI, was found in mild COVID-19 patients. Further studies are needed to determine the reliability of this newly identified COVID-19 brain imaging marker and determine what drives these CBF changes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".