The Role of Cerebrovascular-Reactivity Mapping in Functional MRI: Calibrated fMRI and Resting-State fMRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Task and resting-state functional MRI (fMRI) is primarily based on the same blood-oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) phenomenon that MRI-based cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR) mapping has most commonly relied upon. This technique is finding an ever-increasing role in neuroscience and clinical research as well as treatment planning. The estimation of CVR has unique applications in and associations with fMRI. In particular, CVR estimation is part of a family of techniques called calibrated BOLD fMRI, the purpose of which is to allow the mapping of cerebral oxidative metabolism (CMRO2) using a combination of BOLD and cerebral-blood flow (CBF) measurements. Moreover, CVR has recently been shown to be a major source of vascular bias in computing resting-state functional connectivity, in much the same way that it is used to neutralize the vascular contribution in calibrated fMRI. Furthermore, due to the obvious challenges in estimating CVR using gas challenges, a rapidly growing field of study is the estimation of CVR without any form of challenge, including the use of resting-state fMRI for that purpose. This review addresses all of these aspects in which CVR interacts with fMRI and the role of CVR in calibrated fMRI, provides an overview of the physiological biases and assumptions underlying hypercapnia-based CVR and calibrated fMRI, and provides a view into the future of non-invasive CVR measurement.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".