Spin-Echo Resting-State Functional Connectivity in High-Susceptibility Regions: Accuracy, Reliability, and the Impact of Physiological Noise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gradient-echo (GE) echo-planar imaging (EPI) is the method of choice in blood-oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) functional MRI (fMRI) studies, as it demonstrates substantially higher BOLD sensitivity than its spin-echo (SE) counterpart. However, it is also well known that the GE-EPI signal is prone to signal dropouts and shifts due to susceptibility effects near air-tissue interfaces. SE-EPI, in contrast, is minimally affected by these artifacts. In this study, we quantify, for the first time, the sensitivity and specificity of SE and GE EPI for resting-state fMRI functional connectivity (fcMRI) mapping, using the 1000-brain fcMRI atlas (Yeo et al., 2011 ) as the pseudoground truth. Moreover, we assess the influence of physiological processes on resting-state BOLD measured using both regular and ultrafast GE and SE acquisitions. Our work demonstrates that SE-EPI and GE-EPI are associated with similar sensitivities, specificities, and intersubject reproducibility in fcMRI for most brain networks, generated using both seed-based analysis and independent component analysis. More importantly, SE-based fcMRI measurements demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity, specificity, and intersubject reproducibility in high-susceptibility regions, spanning the limbic and frontal networks in the 1000-brain atlas. In addition, SE-EPI is significantly less sensitive to prominent sources of physiological noise, including low-frequency respiratory volume and heart rate variations. Our work suggests that SE-EPI should be increasingly adopted in the study of networks spanning susceptibility-affected brain regions, including those that are important to memory, language, and emotion.
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 | 0.012 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".