ArticleNeuroImage. Clinical2022
Simplified Edinburgh and modified Boston criteria in relation to amyloid PET for lobar intracerebral hemorrhage.
Article in NeuroImage. Clinical, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Positron emission tomography for diagnosing cerebrovascular disorders: a scoping review.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Article
- Cerebral amyloid angiopathy in spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage - radiology and immunohistochemistry in a consecutive surgical series.Brain & spine · 2025Article
- Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHistopathological evidence of cerebral vascular amyloid β accumulation is the gold standard to diagnose cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA). Neuroimaging findings obtained with CT and MRI can suggest the presence of CAA when histopathology is lacking. We explored the role of amyloid PET in patients with lobar intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) as this may provide molecular evidence for CAA as well.
methodsIn this retrospective, monocenter analysis, we included consecutive patients with non-traumatic lobar ICH who had undergone amyloid PET. We categorized patients according to amyloid PET status and compared demographics and neuroimaging findings. We calculated sensitivity and specificity of the simplified Edinburgh criteria and amyloid PET with probable modified Boston criteria as reference standard, as well as sensitivity and specificity of the simplified Edinburgh and modified Boston criteria with amyloid PET status as molecular marker for presence or absence of CAA.
resultsWe included 38 patients of whom 24 (63%) were amyloid PET positive. Amyloid PET positive patients were older at presentation (p = 0.004). We observed no difference in prevalence of subarachnoid hemorrhages, fingerlike projections or microbleeds between both groups, but cortical superficial siderosis (p = 0.003) was more frequent in the amyloid PET positive group. In 5 out of 38 patients (13%), the modified Boston criteria were not fulfilled due to young age or concomitant vitamin K antagonist use with INR > 3.0. With the modified Boston criteria as reference standard, there was no difference in sensitivity nor specificity between the simplified Edinburgh criteria and amyloid PET status. With amyloid PET status as reference standard, there was also no difference in sensitivity nor specificity between the simplified Edinburgh and modified Boston criteria.
conclusionsAmyloid PET was positive in 63% of lobar ICH patients. Under certain circumstances, patients might not be diagnosed with probable CAA according to the modified Boston criteria and in these cases, amyloid PET may be useful. Accuracy to predict CAA based on amyloid PET status did not differ between the simplified Edinburgh and modified Boston criteria.
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.