Network analysis identifies consensus physiological measures of neurovascular coupling in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intimate communication between neural and vascular structures is required to match neuronal metabolism to blood flow, a process termed neurovascular coupling. The number of laboratories assessing neurovascular coupling in humans is increasing due to clinical interest in disease states, and basic science interest in a non-anesthetized, non-craniotomized, unrestrained, in vivo model. However, there is a lack of knowledge regarding how best to characterize the neurovascular response. To address this knowledge gap, we have amassed a highly powered human neurovascular coupling dataset, and deployed a network-based approach to reveal the most powerful and consistent metrics for quantifying neurovascular coupling. Using dimensionality reduction, community-based clustering, and majority-voting of traditional metrics (e.g. peak response, time to peak) and non-traditional metrics (e.g. varying time windows, pulsatility), we have identified which of the existing metrics predominantly characterize the neurovascular coupling response, are stable within and across participants, and explain the vast majority of the variance within our dataset of over 300 trials. We then harnessed our empirical approach to generate powerful novel metrics of neurovascular coupling, termed iAmplitude, iRate, and iPulsatility, which increase sensitivity when capturing population differences. These metrics may be useful to optimally understand neurovascular coupling in health and disease.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".