Effects of Systemic Physiology on Mapping Resting-State Networks Using Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resting-state functional connectivity (rsFC) has gained popularity mainly due to its simplicity and potential for providing insights into various brain disorders. In this vein, functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) is an attractive choice due to its portability, flexibility, and low cost, allowing for bedside imaging of brain function. While promising, fNIRS suffers from non-neural signal contaminations (i.e., systemic physiological noise), which can increase correlation across fNIRS channels, leading to spurious rsFC networks. In the present work, we hypothesized that additional measurements with short channels, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and end-tidal CO2 could provide a better understanding of the effects of systemic physiology on fNIRS-based resting-state networks. To test our hypothesis, we acquired 12 min of resting-state data from 10 healthy participants. Unlike previous studies, we investigated the efficacy of different pre-processing approaches in extracting resting-state networks. Our results are in agreement with previous studies and reinforce the fact that systemic physiology can overestimate rsFC. We expanded on previous work by showing that removal of systemic physiology decreases intra- and inter-subject variability, increasing the ability to detect neural changes in rsFC across groups and over longitudinal studies. Our results show that by removing systemic physiology, fNIRS can reproduce resting-state networks often reported with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Finally, the present work details the effects of systemic physiology and outlines how to remove (or at least ameliorate) their contributions to fNIRS signals acquired at rest.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".