Cerebral blood flow estimation in vivo using local tissue reference functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of bolus signals obtained from tissue as reference functions (or local reference functions [LRFs]) rather than arterial input functions (AIFs) when deriving cross-calibrated cerebral blood flow (CBF(CC)) estimates via deconvolution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: AIF and white matter (WM) LRF CBF(CC) maps (cross-calibrated so that normal WM was 23.7 mL/minute/100 g) derived using singular value decomposition (SVD) were examined in 28 ischemic stroke patients. Median CBF(CC) estimates from normal gray matter (GM) and ischemic tissue were obtained. RESULTS: AIF and LRF median CBF(CC) estimates resembled one another for all 28 patients (average paired CBF(CC) difference 0.4 +/- 1.7 mL/minute/100 g and -0.4 +/- 1.4 mL/minute/100 g in GM and ischemic tissue, respectively). Wilcoxon signed-rank comparisons of patient median CBF(CC) measurements revealed no statistically significant differences between using AIFs and LRFs (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: If CBF is quantified using a patient-specific cross-calibration factor, then LRF CBF estimates are at least as accurate as those from AIFs. Therefore, until AIF quantification is achievable in vivo, perfusion protocols tailored for LRFs would simplify the methodology and provide more reliable perfusion information.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".