MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512297970 · doi:10.1098/rstb.2015.0353

Functional magnetic resonance imaging in chronic ischaemic stroke

2016· review· en· W2512297970 on OpenAlexafffund
Evelyn M.R. Lake, Paolo Bazzigaluppi, Bojana Stefanovic

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsHeart and Stroke FoundationSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingFunctional magnetic resonance imagingStroke (engine)MedicineNuclear magnetic resonanceIschaemic strokeNeurosciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationCardiologyIschemiaPsychologyRadiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ischaemic stroke is the leading cause of adult disability worldwide. Effective rehabilitation is hindered by uncertainty surrounding the underlying mechanisms that govern long-term ischaemic injury progression. Despite its potential as a sensitive non-invasive in vivo marker of brain function that may aid in the development of new treatments, blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has found limited application in the clinical research on chronic stage stroke progression. Stroke affects each of the physiological parameters underlying the BOLD contrast, markedly complicating the interpretation of BOLD fMRI data. This review summarizes current progress on application of BOLD fMRI in the chronic stage of ischaemic injury progression and discusses means by which more information may be gained from such BOLD fMRI measurements. Concomitant measurements of vascular reactivity, neuronal activity and metabolism in preclinical models of stroke are reviewed along with illustrative examples of post-ischaemic evolution in neuronal, glial and vascular function. The realization of the BOLD fMRI potential to propel stroke research is predicated on the carefully designed preclinical research establishing an ischaemia-specific quantitative model of BOLD signal contrast to provide the framework for interpretation of fMRI findings in clinical populations.This article is part of the themed issue 'Interpreting BOLD: a dialogue between cognitive and cellular neuroscience'.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207