Cerebral oxygen extraction fraction: Comparison of dual‐gas challenge calibrated BOLD with CBF and challenge‐free gradient echo QSM+qBOLD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To compare cortical gray matter oxygen extraction fraction (OEF) estimated from 2 MRI methods: (1) the quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) plus quantitative blood oxygen level dependent imaging (qBOLD) (QSM+qBOLD or QQ), and (2) the dual‐gas calibrated‐BOLD (DGCB) in healthy subjects; and to investigate the validity of iso‐cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen consumption assumption during hypercapnia using QQ. Methods In 10 healthy subjects, 3 tesla MRI including a multi‐echo gradient echo sequence at baseline and hypercapnia for QQ, as well as an EPI dual‐echo pseudo‐continuous arterial spin labeling for DGCB, were performed under a hypercapnic and a hyperoxic condition. OEFs from QQ and DGCB were compared using region of interest analysis and paired t test. For QQ, cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen consumption = cerebral blood flow*OEF*arterial oxygen content was generated for both baseline and hypercapnia, which were compared. Results Average OEF in cortical gray matter across 10 subjects from QQ versus DGCB was 35.5 ± 6.7% versus 38.0 ± 9.1% ( P = .49) at baseline and 20.7 ± 4.4% versus 28.4 ± 7.6% ( P = .02) in hypercapnia: OEF in cortical gray matter was significantly reduced as measured in QQ ( P < .01) and in DGCB ( P < .01). Cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen consumption (in μmol O 2 /min/100 g) was 168.2 ± 54.1 at baseline from DGCB and was 153.1 ± 33.8 at baseline and 126.4 ± 34.2 ( P < .01) in hypercapnia from QQ. Conclusion The differences in OEF obtained from QQ and DGCB are small and nonsignificant at baseline but are statistically significant during hypercapnia. In addition, QQ shows a cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen consumption decrease (17.4%) during hypercapnia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".