MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cerebrovascular Reactivity to Carbon Dioxide: A Theoretical Examination

2013· article· en· W3177225026 on OpenAlexaff
Olivia Pucci, Anne Battisti‐Charbonney, Jorn Fierstra, Julien Poublanc, Adrian P. Crawley, Daniel M. Mandell, David J. Mikulis, Joseph A. Fisher, James Duffin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoxelSigmoid functionCerebral blood flowInflection pointChemistryNuclear medicineCardiologyNuclear magnetic resonanceMedicineMathematicsRadiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR) is the ratio of cerebral blood flow (CBF) response to a vasoactive stimulus increase. Current measurement of CVR uses the BOLD MRI signal as an indicator of CBF in response to standardized changes in CO 2 . A step increase in PCO 2 is applied and the resulting changes in CBF are assumed to be linearly related. However, this assumption of linearity may be incorrect, and the resulting CVR may be prone to errors. We therefore investigated the differential effects of gradual versus step changes in PCO 2 on CVR. Two gas provocations were applied in 15 patients and 18 healthy subjects: 1) a step change from 40 to 50 mmHg and 2) a steady 4‐min ramp increase from 30 to 50 mmHg. CVR was defined on a voxel‐wise basis as %ΔBOLD MR signal/Δ P ET CO 2 . The total brain % BOLD response to a ramp showed a sigmoidal pattern globally and in some individual voxels. CVRs calculated from the step change in PCO 2 did not represent the steepest part of the sigmoidal curve in individuals whose sigmoidal inflection point was at a PCO 2 less than 50 mmHg. Voxels with negative CVR values showed abrupt onset signal declines at PCO 2 levels exceeding a threshold value. A more sophisticated interpretation of high resolution CVR must take into account the range of PCO 2 , the position and shape of the BOLD‐PCO 2 sigmoidal curve, and the vasodilatory and constrictor reserve in various vascular beds.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207