MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972905908 · doi:10.1177/0271678x19872564

Quantification of cerebral blood flow in adults by contrast-enhanced near-infrared spectroscopy: Validation against MRI

2019· article· en· W2972905908 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel Milej, Lian He, Androu Abdalmalak, Wesley B. Baker, Udunna Anazodo, Mamadou Diop, Sudipto Dolui, Venkaiah C. Kavuri, William Pavlosky, Lin Wang, Ramani Balu, John A. Detre, Olivia Amendolia, Francis Quattrone, W. Andrew Kofke, Arjun G. Yodh, Keith St. Lawrence

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute on AgingCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCerebral blood flowNormocapniaPerfusionIndocyanine greenBlood flowNear-infrared spectroscopyNuclear magnetic resonanceNuclear medicinePerfusion scanningBiomedical engineeringHypercapniaChemistryMedicineCardiologyAnesthesiaPathologyPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of absolute cerebral blood flow (CBF) measurements obtained by dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) using indocyanine green as a perfusion contrast agent. For validation, CBF was measured independently using the MRI perfusion method arterial spin labeling (ASL). Data were acquired at two sites and under two flow conditions (normocapnia and hypercapnia). Depth sensitivity was enhanced using time-resolved detection, which was demonstrated in a separate set of experiments using a tourniquet to temporally impede scalp blood flow. A strong correlation between CBF measurements from ASL and DCE-NIRS was observed (slope = 0.99 ± 0.08, y-intercept = −1.7 ± 7.4 mL/100 g/min, and R 2 = 0.88). Mean difference between the two techniques was 1.9 mL/100 g/min (95% confidence interval ranged from −15 to 19 mL/100g/min and the mean ASL CBF was 75.4 mL/100 g/min). Error analysis showed that structural information and baseline absorption coefficient were needed for optimal CBF reconstruction with DCE-NIRS. This study demonstrated that DCE-NIRS is sensitive to blood flow in the adult brain and can provide accurate CBF measurements with the appropriate modeling techniques.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations46
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cerebral Blood Flow & MetabolismSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207