Observational studyBMC medical imaging2026
A clinical and head CT-based scoring system for predicting high cerebral microbleeds burden in hypertensive patients.
Observational study in BMC medical imaging, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to establish and validate a scoring system utilizing clinical and head CT features to predict high cerebral microbleeds (CMBs) burden (> 10 CMBs) in hypertensive patients.
methodsA retrospective review was conducted on 458 hypertensive patients from two centers, including 244 patients in the training cohort, 101 patients in the internal validation cohort, and 113 patients in the external validation cohort. Clinical data, as well as head CT and MRI findings, were collected. Head MRI results were used to classify patients into two groups: those with > 10 CMBs and those with ≤ 10 CMBs. Statistically significant clinical and CT features distinguishing the groups were identified through univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. These features were subsequently weighted and scored to establish a scoring system. The model's effectiveness was assessed through receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and decision curve analysis (DCA). To enhance clinical applicability, the scoring system was stratified into three score ranges.
resultsFour features were ultimately incorporated into the scoring system: hypertension duration, lacunar infarcts count grade, lacunar infarcts location grade, and leukoaraiosis grade. The area under the curve (AUC) values for the training, internal validation, and external validation cohorts were 0.898 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.857-0.938), 0.840 (95% CI: 0.760-0.920), and 0.810 (95% CI: 0.725-0.877), respectively. At a cutoff value of 4.5 points, the sensitivity and specificity were 85.7% and 76.9%, respectively. The DCA further demonstrated the clinical utility of the model. The scoring system was categorized into three ranges: 0-1, 2-4, and 5-12. As the score increased, the incidence of high CMBs burden (> 10 CMBs) in the training, internal validation, and external validation cohorts progressively increased.
conclusionThe scoring system, which incorporates clinical and head CT features, has proven to be a valuable tool for predicting high CMBs burden in hypertensive patients and provides significant support for clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.