Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 272

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Brain biopsy in primary angiitis of the central nervous system

Alrawi, Athear, Trobe, Jonathan D., Blaivas, Mila, Musch, David C.·1999·Neurology

Abstract

To determine the yield of brain biopsy and the predictive value of clinical features and ancillary studies, we retrospectively analyzed hospital chart data from 61 consecutive patients suspected of having primary angiitis of the CNS (PACNS). Biopsies disclosed PACNS in 22 (36%), alternative diagnoses in 24 (39%), and no diagnosis in 15 (25%). Clinical indicators and angiography were not useful predictors of PACNS. Brain biopsy should be the primary diagnostic tool in this setting because of the poor reliability of other indicators and because of the high yield of alternative diagnoses requiring different management.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1212/wnl.53.4.858

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 272

Metadata

Authors
Alrawi, A., Trobe, J. D., Blaivas, M., & Musch, D. C.
Venue
Neurology
Published
1999-09
Volume
53
Issue
4
Pages
858-858
ISSN
  • 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-632X
OpenAlex
W2075956197
Cited by
272
References
0
FWCI
3.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Brain biopsy in primary angiitis of the central nervous system. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1212/wnl.53.4.858
The paper
Alrawi, A., Trobe, J. D., Blaivas, M., & Musch, D. C. (1999). Brain biopsy in primary angiitis of the central nervous system. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.53.4.858

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.