ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2023
Boston criteria v2.0 for cerebral amyloid angiopathy without hemorrhage: An MRI-neuropathological validation study.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUpdated criteria for the clinical-MRI diagnosis of cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) have recently been proposed. However, their performance in individuals without intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) or transient focal neurological episodes (TFNE) is unknown. We assessed the diagnostic performance of the Boston criteria version 2.0 for CAA diagnosis in a cohort of individuals presenting without symptomatic ICH.
methodsFifty-four participants from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging or Alzheimer's Disease Research Center were included if they had an antemortem MRI with gradient-recall echo sequences and a brain autopsy with CAA evaluation. Performance of the Boston criteria v2.0 was compared to v1.5 using histopathologically verified CAA as the reference standard.
resultsMedian age at MRI was 75 years (IQR 65-80) with 28/54 participants having histopathologically verified CAA (i.e., moderate-to-severe CAA in at least 1 lobar region). The sensitivity and specificity of the Boston criteria v2.0 were 28.6% (95%CI: 13.2-48.7%) and 65.3% (95%CI: 44.3-82.8%) for probable CAA diagnosis (AUC 0.47) and 75.0% (55.1-89.3) and 38.5% (20.2-59.4) for any CAA diagnosis (possible + probable; AUC: 0.57), respectively. The v2.0 Boston criteria was not superior in performance compared to the prior v1.5 criteria for either CAA diagnostic category.
conclusionsThe Boston criteria v2.0 have low accuracy in patients who are asymptomatic or only have cognitive symptoms.. Additional biomarkers need to be explored to optimize CAA diagnosis in this population.
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.