MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387472615 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.123.042656

Cerebrovascular Reactivity in Patients With Small Vessel Disease: A Cross-Sectional Study

2023· article· en· W4387472615 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emilie Sleight, Michael Stringer, Úna Clancy, Carmen Arteaga, Daniela Jaime García, Will Hewins, Angela C.C. Jochems, Olivia KL Hamilton, Cameron Manning, Alasdair G. Morgan, Rachel Locherty, Yajun Cheng, Xiaodi Liu, Junfang Zhang, Iona Hamilton, Charlotte Jardine, Rosalind Brown, Eleni Sakka, Agniete Kampaite, Stewart Wiseman, María Valdés Hernández, Francesca M. Chappell, Fergus Doubal, Ian Marshall, Michael J. Thrippleton, Joanna M. Wardlaw

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilUK Dementia Research InstituteChina Scholarship CouncilFondation LeducqEuropean CommissionUniversity of EdinburghAlzheimer's SocietyEdinburgh and Lothians Health FoundationWellcome Trust
KeywordsHyperintensityMedicineWhite matterMagnetic resonance imagingCardiologyInternal medicinePerivascular spaceAtrophyLeukoaraiosisStroke (engine)Cross-sectional studyPathologyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR) is inversely related to white matter hyperintensity severity, a marker of cerebral small vessel disease (SVD). Less is known about the relationship between CVR and other SVD imaging features or cognition. We aimed to investigate these cross-sectional relationships. METHODS: Between 2018 and 2021 in Edinburgh, we recruited patients presenting with lacunar or cortical ischemic stroke, whom we characterized for SVD features. We measured CVR in subcortical gray matter, normal-appearing white matter, and white matter hyperintensity using 3T magnetic resonance imaging. We assessed cognition using Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Statistical analyses included linear regression models with CVR as outcome, adjusted for age, sex, and vascular risk factors. We reported regression coefficients with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Of 208 patients, 182 had processable CVR data sets (median age, 68.2 years; 68% men). Although the strength of association depended on tissue type, lower CVR in normal-appearing tissues and white matter hyperintensity was associated with larger white matter hyperintensity volume (BNAWM=−0.0073 [95% CI, −0.0133 to −0.0014] %/mm Hg per 10-fold increase in percentage intracranial volume), more lacunes (BNAWM=−0.00129 [95% CI, −0.00215 to −0.00043] %/mm Hg per lacune), more microbleeds (BNAWM=−0.00083 [95% CI, −0.00130 to −0.00036] %/mm Hg per microbleed), higher deep atrophy score (BNAWM=−0.00218 [95% CI, −0.00417 to −0.00020] %/mm Hg per score point increase), higher perivascular space score (BNAWM=−0.0034 [95% CI, −0.0066 to −0.0002] %/mm Hg per score point increase in basal ganglia), and higher SVD score (BNAWM=−0.0048 [95% CI, −0.0075 to −0.0021] %/mm Hg per score point increase). Lower CVR in normal-appearing tissues was related to lower Montreal Cognitive Assessment without reaching convention statistical significance (BNAWM=0.00065 [95% CI, −0.00007 to 0.00137] %/mm Hg per score point increase). CONCLUSIONS: Lower CVR in patients with SVD was related to more severe SVD burden and worse cognition in this cross-sectional analysis. Longitudinal analysis will help determine whether lower CVR predicts worsening SVD severity or vice versa. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.isrctn.com; Unique identifier: ISRCTN12113543.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations38
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207