Ten Key Insights into the Use of Spinal Cord fMRI
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comprehensive review of the literature-to-date on functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) of the spinal cord is presented. Spinal fMRI has been shown, over more than two decades of work, to be a reliable tool for detecting neural activity. We discuss 10 key points regarding the history, development, methods, and applications of spinal fMRI. Animal models have served a key purpose for the development of spinal fMRI protocols and for experimental spinal cord injury studies. Applications of spinal fMRI span from animal models across healthy and patient populations in humans using both task-based and resting-state paradigms. The literature also demonstrates clear trends in study design and acquisition methods, as the majority of studies follow a task-based, block design paradigm, and utilize variations of single-shot fast spin-echo imaging methods. We, therefore, discuss the similarities and differences of these to resting-state fMRI and gradient-echo EPI protocols. Although it is newly emerging, complex connectivity and network analysis is not only possible, but has also been shown to be reliable and reproducible in the spinal cord for both task-based and resting-state studies. Despite the technical challenges associated with spinal fMRI, this review identifies reliable solutions that have been developed to overcome these challenges.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it