Identification of negative BOLD responses using windkessel models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Alongside positive BOLD responses (PBR), a variety of negative BOLD responses (NBR) with distinct underlying mechanisms also occur. We identify five mechanisms of NBR: i ) local/lateral/contralateral inhibition (LCI), ii ) neuronal disruption of network activity (NDA), iii ) altered balance of neuro-metabolic/vascular couplings (ANC), iv ) arterial blood stealing (ABS), and v ) venous blood backpressure (VBB). Detecting and classifying these mechanisms from BOLD signals is pivotal in understanding normal/pathological brain functions. This requires models and parameters with anatomical/functional interpretation that furnish the understanding of how these mechanisms are fingerprinted by their BOLD responses. Here, we used a windkessel model with viscoelastic compliance as well as dynamics of both neuronal and tissue/blood O 2 to investigate the generation, detection, classification and interpretation of the BOLD hemodynamic response functions (HRF) of above mechanisms. Firstly, we evaluated the use of the general linear model to detect simulated NBRs. Secondly, we tested the ability of a machine learning classifier, built from a simulated ensemble of HRFs, to predict the mechanism underlying a new HRF. Crossvalidation indicates NDA and ANC can accurately be classified solely from fMRI BOLD signals; while LCI, ABS and VBB might require additional imaging modalities. Thirdly, we demonstrated that estimators of the model parameters determinant in the NBRs formation are accurate, and precise to certain resolutions. Finally, we successfully applied our detection/classification/estimation methodology to EEG-fMRI data in a clinical situation where several of these mechanisms could coexist. We believe that the proper identification and interpretation of NBR mechanisms have important clinical and cognitive implications in fMRI 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".