The voxel-wise analysis of false negative fMRI activation in regions of provoked impaired cerebrovascular reactivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Task-evoked Blood-oxygenation-level-dependent (BOLD-fMRI) signal activation is widely used to interrogate eloquence of brain areas. However, data interpretation can be improved, especially in regions with absent BOLD-fMRI signal activation. Absent BOLD-fMRI signal activation may actually represent false-negative activation due to impaired cerebrovascular reactivity (BOLD-CVR) of the vascular bed. The relationship between impaired BOLD-CVR and BOLD-fMRI signal activation may be better studied in healthy subjects where neurovascular coupling is known to be intact. Using a model-based prospective end-tidal carbon dioxide (CO2) targeting algorithm, we performed two controlled 3 tesla BOLD-CVR studies on 17 healthy subjects: 1: at the subjects' individual resting end-tidal CO2 baseline. 2: Around +6.0 mmHg CO2 above the subjects' individual resting baseline. Two BOLD-fMRI finger-tapping experiments were performed at similar normo- and hypercapnic levels. Relative BOLD fMRI signal activation and t-values were calculated for BOLD-CVR and BOLD-fMRI data. For each component of the cerebral motor-network (precentral gyrus, postcentral gyrus, supplementary motor area, cerebellum und fronto-operculum), the correlation between BOLD-CVR and BOLD-fMRI signal changes and t-values was investigated. Finally, a voxel-wise quantitative analysis of the impact of BOLD-CVR on BOLD-fMRI was performed. For the motor-network, the linear correlation coefficient between BOLD-CVR and BOLD-fMRI t-values were significant (p<0.01) and in the range 0.33-0.55, similar to the correlations between the CVR and fMRI Δ%signal (p<0.05; range 0.34-0.60). The linear relationship between CVR and fMRI is challenged by our voxel-wise analysis of Δ%signal and t-value change between normo- and hypercapnia. Our main finding is that BOLD fMRI signal activation maps are markedly dampened in the presence of impaired BOLD-CVR and highlights the importance of a complementary BOLD-CVR assessment in addition to a task-evoked BOLD fMRI to identify brain areas at risk for false-negative BOLD-fMRI signal activation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".