MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046368762 · doi:10.22038/ijmp.2018.12918

Effect of Physiological noise on Thoraco-Lumbar spinal cord fMRI in 3T Magnetic field

2018· article· en· W3046368762 on OpenAlexaff
Hamed Dehghani, Mohammad Ali Oghabian, Seyed Amir Hossein Batouli, Ali Khatibi

Bibliographic record

VenueIranian journal of medical physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpinal cordMedicineDermatomeCommunication noiseLumbarLumbar Spinal CordCordVoxelAnatomyAnesthesiaRadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Functional MRI methods have been used to study sensorimotor processing in the brain and the Spinal cord. However, these techniques confront unwanted contributions to the measured signal from physiological fluctuations. For the spinal cord imaging, most of the challenges are consequences of cardiac and respiratory movement artifacts that are considered as significant sources of noise. Spinal cord in Thoraco-Lumbar is close to lungs and diaphragms that influence cerebrospinal fluid-filled spaces and cause changes in thesusceptibility due to the change in the amount of air in the lung. In this study, we investigatedthe effect of each source of physiological noise and contribution of them to the outcome ofthe analysis of the BOLD signal in human spinal cord during a sensory stimulation of the foot.   Materials and Methods: Fifteen young healthy male volunteers participated in the study. Sixty pressure pain stimuli delivered on L5 dermatome between the two malleoli. All of functional data were collected using a 3T Siemens Prisma scanner with 31 axial slices T2*-weighted ZOOMit (TR = 3000 ms; TE = 30 ms; FA = 90°; FoV = 160 × 160 mm; matrix size = 64 × 64). Respiratory and cardiac signals were recorded during the imaging session using the data acquired from theimplemented physiological monitoring unit. The Spinal Cord Toolbox and FSL were used forimage processing and analysis. Generated respiration and cardiac regressors were includedin the GLM for the quantification of the effect of each of them on the task-analyses results. The sum of activated voxels of the clusters in the spinal cord and in all the image was calculated.   Results: Comparison of sum of activated voxels. A one-way within subject’s ANOVA was applied toevaluate the effect of physiological functions on spinal cord fMRI in three noise correction inthe GLM. There was a statistically significant effect of physiological noise correctiononnumber of activated voxels in Image, F (3, 42) = 3.00689, p = .040817, η2 =0.17, and thisvalues in spinal cord was F(3, 42) = 21.314, p =.00001, , η2 =0.6. Bonferroni post hoc testsillustrate that cardiac noise correction had an effective role on increase activated voxels (mean = 23.46±9.46) compared to other noise correction methods.   Conclusion: The effect of the Heart-beat and Respiration movements has a significant role in thephysiological noise and concurrency between movements with task and correction of thismovements can remove the real effect of stimulation. Cardiac effect and changes in thecorrected results are higher than other physiological noise sources. In spite of previous work,displacement of the spinal cord and effect of this noise in the fMRI results are significant andcannot be ignored.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIranian journal of medical physicsSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207