MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2908790958 · doi:10.1101/512855

Identification of Physiological Response Functions to Correct for Fluctuations in Resting-State fMRI related to Heart Rate and Respiration

2019· preprint· en· W2908790958 on OpenAlexafffund
Michalis Kassinopoulos, Georgios D. Mitsis

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesMcGill UniversityMcDonnell Center for Systems NeuroscienceNational Institutes of HealthNIH Blueprint for Neuroscience ResearchCanada First Research Excellence FundNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsResting state fMRIHuman Connectome ProjectContext (archaeology)Functional magnetic resonance imagingBrain activity and meditationBreathingComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)NeuroscienceArtificial intelligencePsychologyElectroencephalographyFunctional connectivityBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is widely viewed as the gold standard for studying brain function due to its high spatial resolution and non-invasive nature. However, it is well established that changes in breathing patterns and heart rate strongly influence the blood oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) fMRI signal and this, in turn, can have considerable effects on fMRI studies, particularly resting-state studies. The dynamic effects of physiological processes are often quantified by using convolution models along with simultaneously recorded physiological data. In this context, physiological response function ( PRF ) curves (cardiac and respiratory response functions), which are convolved with the corresponding physiological fluctuations, are commonly employed. While it has often been suggested that the PRF curves may be region- or subject- specific, it is still an open question whether this is the case. In the present study, we propose a novel framework for the robust estimation of PRF curves and use this framework to rigorously examine the implications of using population-, subject-, session- and scan-specific PRF curves. The proposed framework was tested on resting-state fMRI and physiological data from the Human Connectome Project. Our results suggest that PRF curves vary significantly across subjects and, to a lesser extent, across sessions from the same subject. These differences can be partly attributed to physiological variables such as the mean and variance of the heart rate during the scan. The proposed methodological framework can be used to obtain robust scan-specific PRF curves from data records with duration longer than 5 minutes, exhibiting significantly improved performance compared to previously defined canonical cardiac and respiration response functions. Besides removing physiological confounds from the BOLD signal, accurate modeling of subject- (or session-/scan-) specific PRF curves is of importance in studies that involve populations with altered vascular responses, such as aging subjects. Highlights Physiological response functions ( PRF ) vary considerably across subjects/sessions Scan-specific PRF curves can be obtained from data records longer than 5 minutes The shape of the cardiac response function is linked to the mean heart rate (HR) Brain regions affected by HR and breathing patterns exhibit substantial overlap HR and breathing patterns affect distinct regions as compared to cardiac pulsatility

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→