MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407114197 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000213323

Longitudinal Cognitive Changes in Cerebral Small Vessel Disease

2025· article· en· W4407114197 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Angela C.C. Jochems, Susana Muñoz Maniega, Úna Clancy, Carmen Arteaga, Daniela Jaime García, Francesca M. Chappell, Olivia KL Hamilton, Ellen V. Backhouse, Gayle Barclay, Charlotte Jardine, Donna McIntyre, Iona Hamilton, Eleni Sakka, María Valdés Hernández, Stewart Wiseman, Mark E. Bastin, Michael Stringer, Michael J. Thrippleton, Fergus Doubal, Joanna M. Wardlaw

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilAlzheimer's SocietyWellcome Trust
KeywordsCognitionDiseaseMedicineNeuroscienceCardiologyPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) are the commonest imaging marker of cerebral small vessel disease (SVD) and a major cause of cognitive decline and vascular dementia. WMHs typically accumulate over time, but recent studies show they can also regress, but potential clinical benefits have received little attention. We examined progressing, stable, and regressing WMH in people with stroke-related SVD and the effect on cognitive outcomes. METHODS: We recruited patients with minor nondisabling ischemic stroke (modified Rankin score ≤2) from stroke services into our prospective longitudinal observational study. Participants underwent cognitive assessment and brain MRI within 3-month poststroke and 1 year later. We gathered information on vascular risk factors, stroke severity, global cognition (Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MoCA]), processing speed and executive functioning (Trail Making Test [TMT] A and B, and the B/A ratio with ratio ≥3 reflecting executive dysfunction), and the Letter Digit Substitution Test. We measured WMH volumes at baseline and 1 year and categorized net WMH volume change into quintiles: Q1 (most regression), Q3 (stable), and Q5 (most progression). We applied repeated-measures linear mixed models to analyze longitudinal WMH and cognitive changes, adjusting for age, sex, premorbid intelligence, stroke severity, disability, white matter structural integrity, and baseline WMH volume. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-eight of 229 participants had WMH volumes available at both time-points. At baseline, the mean age was 67.5 years (SD = 10.9), with 33% female. Mean net WMH volume change per quintile was Q1 -1.79 mL (SD = 1.54), Q2 -0.27 mL (0.20), Q3 0.35 mL (0.18), Q4 1.43 mL (0.48), and Q5 5.31 mL (3.07). MoCA deteriorated the most in participants with most WMH progression (Q5) (estimated β -0.428 [95% CI -0.750 to -0.106]), compared with stable WMH (Q3), with no clear deterioration in those with most WMH regression (Q1). TMT B/A ratio improved in participants with most WMH regression (Q1; -0.385 [-0.758 to -0.012]). DISCUSSION: WMH regression was associated with preserved global cognition and improved executive function, compared with stable WMH, while WMH progression was associated with global cognitive decline. Cognitive benefits of WMH regression suggest that WMH-affected tissue can recover, may explain variance in cognitive outcomes, offer an important intervention target, and should be assessed in other populations and longer follow-up times.

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)0.006
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations24
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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