Biomarkers, designs, and interpretations of resting‐state fMRI in translational pharmacological research: A review of state‐of‐the‐Art, challenges, and opportunities for studying brain chemistry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A decade of research and development in resting-state functional MRI (RSfMRI) has opened new translational and clinical research frontiers. This review aims to bridge between technical and clinical researchers who seek reliable neuroimaging biomarkers for studying drug interactions with the brain. About 85 pharma-RSfMRI studies using BOLD signal (75% of all) or arterial spin labeling (ASL) were surveyed to investigate the acute effects of psychoactive drugs. Experimental designs and objectives include drug fingerprinting dose-response evaluation, biomarker validation and calibration, and translational studies. Common biomarkers in these studies include functional connectivity, graph metrics, cerebral blood flow and the amplitude and spectrum of BOLD fluctuations. Overall, RSfMRI-derived biomarkers seem to be sensitive to spatiotemporal dynamics of drug interactions with the brain. However, drugs cause both central and peripheral effects, thus exacerbate difficulties related to biological confounds, structured noise from motion and physiological confounds, as well as modeling and inference testing. Currently, these issues are not well explored, and heterogeneities in experimental design, data acquisition and preprocessing make comparative or meta-analysis of existing reports impossible. A unifying collaborative framework for data-sharing and data-mining is thus necessary for investigating the commonalities and differences in biomarker sensitivity and specificity, and establishing guidelines. Multimodal datasets including sham-placebo or active control sessions and repeated measurements of various psychometric, physiological, metabolic and neuroimaging phenotypes are essential for pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling and interpretation of the findings. We provide a list of basic minimum and advanced options that can be considered in design and analyses of future pharma-RSfMRI studies. Hum Brain Mapp 38:2276-2325, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.043 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".