Validation and optimization of hypercapnic-calibrated fMRI from oxygen-sensitive two-photon microscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypercapnic-calibrated fMRI allows the estimation of the relative changes in the cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen (rCMRO2) from combined BOLD and arterial spin labelling measurements during a functional task, and promises to permit more quantitative analyses of brain activity patterns. The estimation relies on a macroscopic model of the BOLD effect that balances oxygen delivery and consumption to predict haemoglobin oxygenation and the BOLD signal. The accuracy of calibrated fMRI approaches has not been firmly established, which is limiting their broader adoption. We use our recently developed microscopic vascular anatomical network model in mice as a ground truth simulator to test the accuracy of macroscopic, lumped-parameter BOLD models. In particular, we investigate the original Davis model and a more recent heuristic simplification. We find that these macroscopic models are inaccurate using the originally defined parameters, but that the accuracy can be significantly improved by redefining the model parameters to take on new values. In particular, we find that the parameter α that relates cerebral blood-volume changes to cerebral blood-flow changes is significantly smaller than typically assumed and that the optimal value changes with magnetic field strength. The results are encouraging in that they support the use of simple BOLD models to quantify BOLD signals, but further work is needed to understand the physiological interpretation of the redefined model parameters.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 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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".