The prevalence of non-contrast CT imaging abnormalities in reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS) is a syndrome of recurrent thunderclap headaches and reversible vasoconstriction of the cerebral arteries on neuroimaging within 3 months of onset. Initial non-contrast computed tomography (CT) can reveal abnormalities such as ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) can be present in patients with RCVS and may delay diagnosis. AIMS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of imaging abnormalities on initial non-contrast CT head in adult patients with RCVS. DATA SOURCES & ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials from inception to August 2, 2022. Eligible studies included articles reporting the prevalence of non-contrast CT abnormalities on initial neuroimaging in patients with RCVS, aged 18 and older. Case series, observational studies and clinical trials were included. Data was extracted directly from included papers using a standardized data charting form. RESULTS: The search yielded 722 titles with duplicates removed. Twenty studies that included 379 patients with RCVS met inclusion criteria. We classified non-contrast CT abnormalities as either ischemic stroke, ICH, or SAH. We pooled prevalence data using a random effects model with the inverse-variance weighted method. The most common imaging finding was SAH with a pooled prevalence of 24% (95% CI:17%-33%), followed by ICH at 14% (95% CI:8%-22%), and ischemic stroke at 10% (95% CI:7%-14%). The pooled prevalence of any of these imaging abnormalities on initial non-contrast CT was 31% (95% CI:23%-40%). Risk of bias was moderate to very-high-risk for case-series and low-risk for observational studies. CONCLUSION: Our review demonstrates that one-third of patients with RCVS will have an abnormality on initial non-contrast CT head, including either an ischemic stroke, ICH, or SAH. These findings highlight the diagnostic challenges of RCVS imaging and contribute to our understanding of this disease.
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 | 0.014 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".