The impact of inspired oxygen levels on calibrated fMRI measurements of M, OEF and resting CMRO2 using combined hypercapnia and hyperoxia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent calibrated fMRI techniques using combined hypercapnia and hyperoxia allow the mapping of resting cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen (CMRO2) in absolute units, oxygen extraction fraction (OEF) and calibration parameter M (maximum BOLD). The adoption of such technique necessitates knowledge about the precision and accuracy of the model-derived parameters. One of the factors that may impact the precision and accuracy is the level of oxygen provided during periods of hyperoxia (HO). A high level of oxygen may bring the BOLD responses closer to the maximum M value, and hence reduce the error associated with the M interpolation. However, an increased concentration of paramagnetic oxygen in the inhaled air may result in a larger susceptibility area around the frontal sinuses and nasal cavity. Additionally, a higher O2 level may generate a larger arterial blood T1 shortening, which require a bigger cerebral blood flow (CBF) T1 correction. To evaluate the impact of inspired oxygen levels on M, OEF and CMRO2 estimates, a cohort of six healthy adults underwent two different protocols: one where 60% of O2 was administered during HO (low HO or LHO) and one where 100% O2 was administered (high HO or HHO). The QUantitative O2 (QUO2) MRI approach was employed, where CBF and R2* are simultaneously acquired during periods of hypercapnia (HC) and hyperoxia, using a clinical 3 T scanner. Scan sessions were repeated to assess repeatability of results at the different O2 levels. Our T1 values during periods of hyperoxia were estimated based on an empirical ex-vivo relationship between T1 and the arterial partial pressure of O2. As expected, our T1 estimates revealed a larger T1 shortening in arterial blood when administering 100% O2 relative to 60% O2 (T1LHO = 1.56±0.01 sec vs. T1HHO = 1.47±0.01 sec, P < 4*10-13). In regard to the susceptibility artifacts, the patterns and number of affected voxels were comparable irrespective of the O2 concentration. Finally, the model-derived estimates were consistent regardless of the HO levels, indicating that the different effects are adequately accounted for within the model.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".