ArticleScientific reports2025
Re-evaluation of arterial dissection as a possible major cause of lateral medullary infarction in a single-center study from South Korea.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Limited sensitivity of conventional MRI and the invasiveness of TFCA have restricted the diagnosis of arterial dissection in lateral medullary infarction (LMI), leading to its underestimation and obscuring its clinical significance. However, high-resolution vessel wall MRI (HR-VWMRI) now allows more accessible and accurate diagnosis of dissection, prompting reevaluation of its prevalence. This single-center retrospective study included the LMI patients, among whom a subset underwent advanced imaging as HR-VWMRI or TFCA to confirm definite arterial dissection, and identified clinical factors associated with dissection. A risk scoring system for dissection was then developed based on these factors, and possible dissection was defined using the optimal cutoff value. Among 87 LMI patients, 47 underwent advanced imaging, with 24 (51.1%) diagnosed with definite dissection. Younger age, lower body mass index, headache, and absence of hypertension were associated with definite dissection and constructed dissection score, which showed 87.5% sensitivity and 73.9% specificity. Among the remaining 38 without advanced imaging, 12 were classified as possible dissection. Definite and possible dissections collectively accounted for 43.7% of LMI, exceeding large-artery atherosclerosis. These findings suggest dissection may be a predominant cause of LMI, underscoring the need for heightened awareness in clinical practice and proactive, risk-stratified diagnosis of arterial dissection.
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.