An imaging‐based method of mapping <scp>multi‐echo BOLD</scp> intracranial pulsatility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cardiac-related intracranial pulsatility may relate to cerebrovascular health, and this information is contained in BOLD MRI data. There is broad interest in methods to isolate BOLD pulsatility, and the current study examines a deep learning approach. METHODS: Multi-echo BOLD images, respiratory, and cardiac recordings were measured in 55 adults. Ground truth BOLD pulsatility maps were calculated with an established method. BOLD fast Fourier transform magnitude images were used as temporal-frequency image inputs to a U-Net deep learning model. Model performance was evaluated by mean squared error (MSE), mean absolute error (MAE), structural similarity index (SSIM), and mutual information (MI). Experiments evaluated the influence of input channel size, an age group effect during training, dependence on TE, performance without the U-Net architecture, and importance of respiratory preprocessing. RESULTS: The U-Net model generated BOLD pulsatility maps with lower MSE as additional fast Fourier transform input images were used. There was no age group effect for MSE (P > 0.14). MAE and SSIM metrics did not vary across TE (P > 0.36), whereas MI showed a significant TE dependence (P < 0.05). The U-Net versus no U-Net comparison showed no significant difference for MAE (P = 0.059); however, SSIM and MI were significantly different between models (P < 0.001). Within the insula, the cross-correlation values were high (r > 0.90) when comparing the U-Net model trained with/without respiratory preprocessing. CONCLUSION: Multi-echo BOLD pulsatility maps were synthesized from a U-net model that was trained to use temporal-frequency BOLD image inputs. This work adds to the deep learning methods that characterize BOLD physiological signals.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".