Comparison of non-invasive MRI measurements of cerebral blood flow in a large multisite cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Arterial spin labeling and phase contrast magnetic resonance imaging provide independent non-invasive methods for measuring cerebral blood flow. We compared global cerebral blood flow measurements obtained using pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling and phase contrast in 436 middle-aged subjects acquired at two sites in the NHLBI CARDIA multisite study. Cerebral blood flow measured by phase contrast (CBFPC: 55.76 ± 12.05 ml/100 g/min) was systematically higher (p < 0.001) and more variable than cerebral blood flow measured by pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling (CBFPCASL: 47.70 ± 9.75). The correlation between global cerebral blood flow values obtained from the two modalities was 0.59 (p < 0.001), explaining less than half of the observed variance in cerebral blood flow estimates. Well-established correlations of global cerebral blood flow with age and sex were similarly observed in both CBFPCASL and CBFPC CBFPC also demonstrated statistically significant site differences, whereas no such differences were observed in CBFPCASL No consistent velocity-dependent effects on pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling were observed, suggesting that pseudo-continuous labeling efficiency does not vary substantially across typical adult carotid and vertebral velocities, as has previously been suggested. CONCLUSIONS: Although CBFPCASL and CBFPC values show substantial similarity across the entire cohort, these data do not support calibration of CBFPCASL using CBFPC in individual subjects. The wide-ranging cerebral blood flow values obtained by both methods suggest that cerebral blood flow values are highly variable in the general population.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".