Background and Purpose-Cerebral microbleeds (cMBs) have previously been linked with especially high incidence in Asian patients with moyamoya together with high tendency to bleed. This, presumably, is characteristic of patients with moyamoya. Herein, we, therefore, investigate retrospectively the frequency, location, and longitudinal course of cMBs in a large German cohort. Methods-We included all patients with moyamoya who underwent standard magnetic resonance imaging, including T2*-weighted images, in our department between 1998 and 2015. Two independent readers evaluated magnetic resonance imaging scans to determine the occurrence of cMBs according to the Brain Observer Microbleed Scale. Demographics, initial symptoms leading to hospitalization, and associated diseases were obtained by chart review. Results-Overall, there was a total of 242 T2* studies of 101 included moyamoya patients available with a strong female predominance (69.3%). Eight patients (7.9%) were ≤18 years of age. We detected 25 cMBs within 13 patients (12.9%).One patient <18 of age was presented with a cMB; 2 of 3 patients with an intracranial hemorrhage as initial event demonstrated cMB(s). In 72 of 101 cases, there were 1719 person months of follow-up, with 3 adult patients showing 3 de novo cMBs in the course. The majority of cMBs (64.0%) were located at the cortex/gray-white junction. Conclusions-Although the frequency of cMBs herein is much higher than the expected age-specific incidence, it is still much lower compared with previous reports on cMBs in moyamoya patients of Asian descent. These results might reflect another ethnic-specific difference in patients diagnosed with moyamoya.
Abstract. Background: This feasibility study of text-miningbased scoring algorithm provides an objective comparison of structured reports (SR) and conventional free-text reports (cFTR) by means of guidelineStructured reporting (SR) represents a new direction in communicating radiological reports to clinicians in a way that is clear and uniform (1). However, follow-up studies on SR have shown mixed results regarding adaptation and adherence (2-4). In particular, neuroradiological residents most commonly complain that SRs are overly constraining and time-consuming (5). In spite of that, there is an increasing tendency to use online solutions to generate SR templates (6). For instance, "CT brain" and "MR brain" were the third and fifth most frequently viewed SR templates in the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) online library (7). SR templates can serve as core frameworks, but because of heterogeneous representations of diseases and co-morbidities, there is a substantial need to allow for customization of each report -primarily in the form of additional free text. Consequently, the distinction between conventional free-text (narrative) reports (cFTR) and SR becomes even more blurred, which makes their objective comparison even harder. This raises two further questions: Are SRs indeed 'better' than cFTRs? How can cFTRs be compared with SRs in an objective, fast and scalable way if SRs are often a mixture of structured and free (narrative) text?Firstly, there is a need to define how to objectively quantify 'better'. Commonly the method of choice for such quality assessments is either an expert opinion-based rating (5, 8) or a survey-based evaluation by physicians (4). Although both methods provide valuable insight, they are very laborious and time-consuming for experts and do not scale well for large datasets (4,8). Therefore, we aimed to implement an approach using the adherence to imaging and clinical guidelines as a quality measure.Secondly, in order to objectively compare cFTR with SR, we suggest an evaluation based on widely used text-mining technique using the 'bag of words' representation and cosine similarity (9, 10). The cosine similarity provides the core of many information retrieval systems (11,12). Reports can be 843 This article is freely accessible online.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.