Assessment of the best flow model to characterize diffuse correlation spectroscopy data acquired directly on the brain
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
Diffuse correlation spectroscopy (DCS) is a non-invasive optical technique capable of monitoring tissue perfusion. The normalized temporal intensity autocorrelation function generated by DCS is typically characterized by assuming that the movement of erythrocytes can be modeled as a Brownian diffusion-like process instead of by the expected random flow model. Recently, a hybrid model, referred to as the hydrodynamic diffusion model, was proposed, which combines the random and Brownian flow models. The purpose of this study was to investigate the best model to describe autocorrelation functions acquired directly on the brain in order to avoid confounding effects of extracerebral tissues. Data were acquired from 11 pigs during normocapnia and hypocapnia, and flow changes were verified by computed tomography perfusion (CTP). The hydrodynamic diffusion model was found to provide the best fit to the autocorrelation functions; however, no significant difference for relative flow changes measured by the Brownian and hydrodynamic diffusion models was observed.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it