A systematic review of spinal fMRI research: outlining the elements of experimental design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: Since the first published report of spinal functional MRI (fMRI) in humans in 1996, this body of literature has grown substantially. In the present article, the authors systematically review all spinal fMRI studies conducted in healthy individuals with a focus on the different motor and sensory paradigms used and the results acquired. METHODS: The authors conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE for literature published from 1990 through November 2011 reporting on stimulation paradigms used to assess spinal fMRI scans in healthy individuals. RESULTS: They identified 19 peer-reviewed studies from 1996 to the present in which a combination of different spinal fMRI methods were used to investigate the spinal cord in healthy individuals. Eight of the studies used a motor stimulation paradigm, 10 used a sensory stimulation paradigm, and 1 compared motor and sensory stimulation paradigms. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences in the results of various studies, even when similar stimulation paradigms were used, this body of literature underscores that spinal fMRI signals can be obtained from the human spinal cord. The authors intend this review to serve as an introduction to spinal fMRI research and what it may offer the field of spinal cord injury research.
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 | 0.052 | 0.161 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".