Mapping Long-Term Functional Changes in Cerebral Blood Flow by Arterial Spin Labeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although arterial spin labeling (ASL) is appealing for mapping long-term changes in functional activity, inter-sessional variations in basal blood flow, arterial transit times (ATTs), and alignment errors, can result in significant false activation when comparing images from separate sessions. By taking steps to reduce these sources of noise, this study assessed the ability of ASL to detect functional CBF changes between sessions. ASL data were collected in three sessions to image ATT, resting CBF and CBF changes associated with motor activation (7 participants). Activation maps were generated using rest and task images acquired in the same session and from sessions separated by up to a month. Good agreement was found when comparing between-session activation maps to within-session activation maps with only a 16% decrease in precision (within-session: 90 ± 7%) and a 13% decrease in the Dice similarity (within-session: 0.75 ± 0.07) coefficient after a month. In addition, voxel-wise reproducibility (within-session: 4.7 ± 4.5%) and reliability (within-session: 0.89 ± 0.20) of resting grey-matter CBF decreased by less than 18% for the between-session analysis relative to within-session values. ATT variability between sessions (5.0 ± 2.7%) was roughly half the between-subject variability, indicating that its effects on longitudinal CBF were minimal. These results demonstrate that conducting voxel-wise analysis on CBF images acquired on different days is feasible with only modest loss in precision, highlighting the potential of ASL for longitudinal studies.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".