BOLD Contrast and Noise Characteristics of Densely Sampled Multi-Echo fMRI Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) contrast in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) can be enhanced using multi-echo imaging and postprocessing techniques that combine the echoes in weighted summation. Here, existing echo-weighting methods are reassessed in the context of an explicit physiological noise model, and a new method is introduced: weights that scale linearly with echo time. Additionally, a method using data-driven weights defined using principal component analysis (PCA) is included for comparison. Differences in BOLD contrast enhancement between methods were compared analytically where possible, and using Monte Carlo simulations for different noise conditions and different combinations of acquisition parameters. The comparisons were also validated through densely sampled (256-echo) multi-echo fMRI experimental data acquired at 1.5T and 3.0T. Results indicated that the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the studied weighting methods have a strong dependence on the physiological noise, echo spacing and the width of the sampling window. With low noise correlations between echoes, contrast gain for all weighting methods was shown to have a square root dependence on the echo sampling density, and in typical experimental noise conditions, increasing the sampling window beyond 3·T2* produced marginal additional benefit. Simulations and experiments also emphasized that noise correlations between echoes are likely the main factor limiting the potential CNR gains achievable by densely sampled multi-echo fMRI.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".