ArticleEuropean radiology2023
Magnetic susceptibility as a 1-year predictor of outcome in familial cerebral cavernous malformations: a pilot study.
Article in European radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Natural history of familial cerebral cavernous malformations: the CCM_Italia cohort study.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Trial Readiness of Cavernous Malformations With Symptomatic Hemorrhage, Part II: Biomarkers and Trial Modeling.Stroke · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo test whether quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) of cerebral cavernous malformations (CCMs) assessed at baseline may predict the presence or absence of haemorrhagic signs at 1-year follow-up.
methodsFamilial CCM patients were enrolled in the longitudinal multicentre study Treat-CCM. The 3-T MRI scan allowed performing a semi-automatic segmentation of CCMs and computing the maximum susceptibility in each segmented CCM (QSMmax) at baseline. CCMs were classified as haemorrhagic and non-haemorrhagic at baseline and then subclassified according to the 1-year (t1) evolution. Between-group differences were tested, and the diagnostic accuracy of QSMmax in predicting the presence or absence of haemorrhagic signs in CCMs was calculated with ROC analyses.
resultsThirty-three patients were included in the analysis, and a total of 1126 CCMs were segmented. QSMmax was higher in haemorrhagic CCMs than in non-haemorrhagic CCMs (p < 0.001). In haemorrhagic CCMs at baseline, the accuracy of QSMmax in differentiating CCMs that were still haemorrhagic from CCMs that recovered from haemorrhage at t1 calculated as area under the curve (AUC) was 0.78 with sensitivity 62.69%, specificity 82.35%, positive predictive value (PPV) 93.3% and negative predictive value (NPV) 35.9% (QSMmax cut-off ≥ 1462.95 ppb). In non-haemorrhagic CCMs at baseline, AUC was 0.91 in differentiating CCMs that bled at t1 from stable CCMs with sensitivity 100%, specificity 81.9%, PPV 5.1%, and NPV 100% (QSMmax cut-off ≥ 776.29 ppb).
conclusionsThe QSMmax in CCMs at baseline showed high accuracy in predicting the presence or absence of haemorrhagic signs at 1-year follow-up. Further effort is required to test the role of QSM in follow-up assessment and therapeutic trials in multicentre CCM studies. KEY POINTS: • QSM in semi-automatically segmented CCM was feasible. • The maximum magnetic susceptibility in a single CCM at baseline may predict the presence or absence of haemorrhagic signs at 1-year follow-up. • Multicentric studies are needed to enforce the role of QSM in predicting the CCMs' haemorrhagic evolution in patients affected by familial and sporadic forms.
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.