Calibrated BOLD using direct measurement of changes in venous oxygenation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Calibration of the BOLD signal is potentially of great value in providing a closer measure of the underlying changes in brain function related to neuronal activity than the BOLD signal alone, but current approaches rely on an assumed relationship between cerebral blood volume (CBV) and cerebral blood flow (CBF). This is poorly characterised in humans and does not reflect the predominantly venous nature of BOLD contrast, whilst this relationship may vary across brain regions and depend on the structure of the local vascular bed. This work demonstrates a new approach to BOLD calibration which does not require an assumption about the relationship between cerebral blood volume and cerebral blood flow. This method involves repeating the same stimulus both at normoxia and hyperoxia, using hyperoxic BOLD contrast to estimate the relative changes in venous blood oxygenation and venous CBV. To do this the effect of hyperoxia on venous blood oxygenation has to be calculated, which requires an estimate of basal oxygen extraction fraction, and this can be estimated from the phase as an alternative to using a literature estimate. Additional measurement of the relative change in CBF, combined with the blood oxygenation change can be used to calculate the relative change in CMRO(2) due to the stimulus. CMRO(2) changes of 18 ± 8% in response to a motor task were measured without requiring the assumption of a CBV/CBF coupling relationship, and are in agreement with previous approaches.
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 | 0.000 | 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".