Comparison of time-resolved and continuous-wave near-infrared techniques for measuring cerebral blood flow in piglets
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
A primary focus of neurointensive care is monitoring the injured brain to detect harmful events that can impair cerebral blood flow (CBF), resulting in further injury. Since current noninvasive methods used in the clinic can only assess blood flow indirectly, the goal of this research is to develop an optical technique for measuring absolute CBF. A time-resolved near-infrared (TR-NIR) apparatus is built and CBF is determined by a bolus-tracking method using indocyanine green as an intravascular flow tracer. As a first step in the validation of this technique, CBF is measured in newborn piglets to avoid signal contamination from extracerebral tissue. Measurements are acquired under three conditions: normocapnia, hypercapnia, and following carotid occlusion. For comparison, CBF is concurrently measured by a previously developed continuous-wave NIR method. A strong correlation between CBF measurements from the two techniques is revealed with a slope of 0.79±0.06, an intercept of -2.2±2.5 ml∕100 g∕min, and an R2 of 0.810±0.088. Results demonstrate that TR-NIR can measure CBF with reasonable accuracy and is sensitive to flow changes. The discrepancy between the two methods at higher CBF could be caused by differences in depth sensitivities between continuous-wave and time-resolved measurements.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it