Comparison of Cerebral Vascular Reactivity Measures Obtained Using Breath-Holding and CO <sub>2</sub> Inhalation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stimulation of cerebral vasculature using hypercapnia has been widely used to study cerebral vascular reactivity (CVR), which can be expressed as the quantitative change in cerebral blood flow (CBF) per mm Hg change in end-tidal partial pressure of CO2 (PETCO2). We investigate whether different respiratory manipulations, with arterial spin labeling used to measure CBF, lead to consistent measures of CVR. The approaches included: (1) an automated system delivering variable concentrations of inspired CO2 for prospective targeting of PETCO2, (2) administration of a fixed concentration of CO2 leading to subject-dependent changes in PETCO2, (3) a breath-hold (BH) paradigm with physiologic modeling of CO2 accumulation, and (4) a maneuver combining breath-hold and hyperventilation. When CVR was expressed as the percent change in CBF per mm Hg change in PETCO2, methods 1 to 3 gave consistent results. The CVR values using method 4 were significantly lower. When CVR was expressed in terms of the absolute change in CBF (mL/100 g per minute per mm Hg), greater discrepancies became apparent: methods 2 and 3 gave lower absolute CVR values compared with method 1, and the value obtained with method 4 was dramatically lower. Our findings indicate that care must be taken to ensure that CVR is measured over the linear range of the CBF-CO2 dose-response curve, avoiding hypocapnic conditions.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it