ArticleEuropean radiology2022
Spatial distribution of cerebral microbleeds reveals heterogeneous pathogenesis in CADASIL.
Article in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Persistent vessel wall enhancement and progression of cerebral microbleeds in CADASIL: a case report.Frontiers in radiology · 2026Article
- Determinants of cerebral microbleed presence and burden in CADASIL.Cerebral circulation - cognition and behavior · 2026Article
- CADASIL: A NOTCH3-associated cerebral small vessel disease.Journal of advanced research · 2024Review
- Dental procedure induced cerebellar haemorrhage with visual tilt and unsuspected CADASIL.BMJ case reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesRadiological diagnosis of subtypes of cerebral small vessel diseases remains challenging. This study aimed to explore the spatial distribution of cerebral microbleeds (CMBs) in cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarct and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL) in contrast to cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) in the lobar regions.
methodsThirty-two patients with CADASIL and 33 patients with probable CAA were prospectively and consecutively included. On 3-Tesla susceptibility-weighted magnetic resonance images, CMBs were analyzed for incidence and volume within atlas-based regions of interest, followed by voxel-wise analysis using risk mapping. The distribution of CMBs was correlated with the status of hypertension. Correlation and group differences with a p-value less than 0.05 were considered to be significant.
resultsAs compared with the CAA group, the CADASIL group presents a larger CMB volume in hippocampus/amygdala and white matter (nonparametric analysis of covariance, p = 0.014 and 0.037, respectively), a smaller CMB volume in parietal lobe (p = 0.038), and a higher incidence in hippocampus/amygdala, white matter, and insula (logistic regression, p = 0.019, 0.024, and 0.30, respectively). As part of the exclusion criteria of probable CAA, thalamus, basal ganglia, and pons exhibit greater CMB volume/incidence in the CADASIL group. In CADASIL patients, hot spots of CMBs are identified in the putamen and posteromedial thalamus; hypertension is associated with larger CMB volumes in insula, basal ganglia, and pons.
conclusionsThe spatial distribution of CMBs is differentiable between CADASIL and CAA in lobar regions. In CADASIL patients, hypertension has a region-dependent mediating effect on the CMB volume. KEY POINTS: • The topological distribution of lobar CMBs is differentiable between CADASIL and CAA. • In CADASIL patients, hypertension mediates CMB volume and the mediation is region dependent. • CMB risk mapping allows for voxel-wise exploration of CMB distribution and reveals hot spots in the putamen and posteromedial thalamus in CADASIL.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.