Test–retest reliability of cerebral blood flow and blood oxygenation level‐dependent responses to hypercapnia and hyperoxia using dual‐echo pseudo‐continuous arterial spin labeling and step changes in the fractional composition of inspired gases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the reproducibility of blood oxygenation level-dependent / cerebral blood flow (BOLD/CBF) responses to hypercapnia/hyperoxia using dual-echo pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling (pCASL) and step changes in inspired doses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight subjects were scanned twice, within 24 hours, using the same respiratory manipulation and imaging protocol. Imaging comprised a 5-minute anatomical acquisition, allowing segmentation of the gray matter (GM) tissue for further analysis, and an 18-minute pCASL functional scan. Hypercapnia/hyperoxia were induced by increasing the fraction of inspired CO2 to 5% and inspired O2 to 60%, alternately. Reproducibility of BOLD and CBF pCASL measures was assessed by computing the inter-session coefficient of variation (CV) of the respective signals in GM. RESULTS: BOLD and CBF measures in GM were robust and consistent, yielding CV values below 10% for BOLD hypercapnic/hyperoxic responses (which averaged 1.9 ± 0.1% and 1.14 ± 0.02%) and below 20% for the CBF hypercapnic response (which averaged 35 ± 2 mL/min/100g). The CV for resting CBF was 3.5%. CONCLUSION: It is possible to attain reproducible measures of the simultaneous BOLD and CBF responses to blood gases, within a reasonable scan time and with whole brain coverage, using a simple respiratory manipulation and dual-echo pCASL.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".