Simultaneous Multislice Resting-State Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 3 Tesla: Slice-Acceleration-Related Biases in Physiological Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simultaneous multislice echo-planar imaging (SMS-EPI) can enhance the spatiotemporal resolution of resting-state functional MRI (rs-fMRI) by encoding and simultaneously imaging "groups" of slices. However, phenomena, including respiration, cardiac pulsatility, respiration volume per time (RVT), and cardiac rate variation (CRV), referred to as "physiological processes," impact SMS-EPI rs-fMRI in a manner that is yet to be well characterized. In particular, physiological noise may incur aliasing and introduce spurious signals from one slice into another within the "slice group" in rs-fMRI data, resulting in a deleterious effect on resting-state functional connectivity MRI (rs-fcMRI) maps. In the present work, we aimed to quantitatively compare the effects of physiological noise on regular EPI and SMS-EPI in terms of rs-fMRI data and resulting functional connectivity measurements. We compare SMS-EPI and regular EPI data acquired from 11 healthy young adults with matching parameters. The physiological noise characteristics were compared between the two data sets through different combinations of physiological regression steps. We observed that the physiological noise characteristics differed between SMS-EPI and regular EPI, with cardiac pulsatility contributing more to noise in regular EPI data but low-frequency heart rate variability contributing more to SMS-EPI. In addition, a significant slice-group bias was observed in the functional connectivity density maps derived from SMS-EPI data. We conclude that making appropriate corrections for physiological noise is likely more important for SMS-EPI than for regular EPI acquisitions.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".