Assessing Cerebrovascular Reactivity Abnormality by Comparison to a Reference Atlas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attribution of vascular pathophysiology to reductions in cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR) is confounded by subjective assessment and the normal variation between anatomic regions. This study aimed to develop an objective scoring assessment of abnormality. CVR was measured as the ratio of the blood-oxygen-level-dependent magnetic resonance signal response divided by an increase in CO2, standardized to eliminate variability. A reference normal atlas was generated by coregistering the CVR maps from 46 healthy subjects into a standard space and calculating the mean and standard deviation (s.d.) of CVR for each voxel. Example CVR studies from 10 patients with cerebral vasculopathy were assessed for abnormality, by normalizing each patient's CVR to the same standard space as the atlas, and assigning a z-score to each voxel relative to the mean and s.d. of the corresponding atlas voxel. Z-scores were color coded and superimposed on their anatomic scans to form CVR z-maps. We found the CVR z-maps provided an objective evaluation of abnormality, enhancing our appreciation of the extent and distribution of pathophysiology compared with CVR maps alone. We concluded that CVR z-maps provide an objective, improved form of evaluation for comparisons of voxel-specific CVR between subjects, and across tests sites.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".