The role(s) of astrocytes and astrocyte activity in neurometabolism, neurovascular coupling, and the production of functional neuroimaging signals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data acquired with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) are often interpreted in terms of the underlying neuronal activity, despite mounting evidence that these signals do not always correlate with electrophysiological recordings. Therefore, considering the increasing popularity of functional neuroimaging, it is clear that a more comprehensive theory is needed to reconcile these apparent disparities and more accurately explain the mechanisms through which various PET and fMRI signals arise. In the present article, we have turned our attention to astrocytes, which vastly outnumber neurons and are known to serve a number of functions throughout the central nervous system (CNS). For example, astrocytes are known to be critically involved in neurotransmitter uptake and recycling, and empirical data suggests that brain activation increases both oxidative and glycolytic astrocyte metabolism. Furthermore, a number of recent studies imply that astrocytes are likely to play a key role in regulating cerebral blood delivery. Therefore, we propose that, by mediating neurometabolic and neurovascular processes throughout the CNS, astrocytes could provide a common physiological basis for fMRI and PET signals. Such a theory has significant implications for the interpretation of functional neuroimaging signals, because astrocytic changes reflect subthreshold neuronal activity, simultaneous excitatory/inhibitory synaptic inputs, and other transient metabolic demands that may not elicit electrophysiological changes. It also suggests that fMRI and PET signals may have inherently less sensitivity to decreases in synaptic input (i.e. 'negative activity') and/or inhibitory (GABAergic) neurotransmission.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".