The effect of dissolved oxygen on the susceptibility of blood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: It has been predicted that, during hyperoxia, excess O2 dissolved in arterial blood will significantly alter the blood's magnetic susceptibility. This would confound the interpretation of the hyperoxia-induced blood oxygenation level-dependent signal as arising solely from changes in deoxyhemoglobin. This study, therefore, aimed to determine how dissolved O2 affects the susceptibility of blood. THEORY AND METHODS: We present a comprehensive model for the effect of dissolved O2 on the susceptibility of blood and compare it with another recently published model, referred to here as the ideal gas model (IGM). For validation, distilled water and samples of bovine plasma were oxygenated over a range of hyperoxic O2 concentrations and their susceptibilities were determined using multiecho gradient echo phase imaging. RESULTS: In distilled water and plasma, the measured changes in susceptibility were very linear, with identical slopes of 0.062 ppb/mm Hg of O2. This change was dramatically less than previously predicted using the IGM and was close to that predicted by our model. The primary source of error in the IGM is the overestimation of the volume fraction occupied by dissolved O2. CONCLUSION: Under most physiological conditions, the susceptibility of dissolved O2 can be disregarded in MRI studies employing hyperoxia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".