Modeling venous bias in resting state functional <scp>MRI</scp> metrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resting-state (rs) functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is used to detect low-frequency fluctuations in the blood oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) signal across brain regions. Correlations between temporal BOLD signal fluctuations are commonly used to infer functional connectivity. However, because BOLD is based on the dilution of deoxyhemoglobin, it is sensitive to veins of all sizes, and its amplitude is biased by draining veins. These biases affect local BOLD signal location and amplitude, and may also influence BOLD-derived connectivity measures, but the magnitude of this venous bias and its relation to vein size and proximity is unknown. Here, veins were identified using high-resolution quantitative susceptibility maps and utilized in a biophysical model to investigate systematic venous biases on common local rsfMRI-derived measures. Specifically, we studied the impact of vein diameter and distance to veins on the amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations (ALFF), fractional ALFF (fALFF), Hurst exponent (HE), regional homogeneity (ReHo), and eigenvector centrality values in the grey matter. Values were higher across all distances in smaller veins, and decreased with increasing vein diameter. Additionally, rsfMRI values associated with larger veins decrease with increasing distance from the veins. ALFF and ReHo were the most biased by veins, while HE and fALFF exhibited the smallest bias. Across all metrics, the amplitude of the bias was limited in voxel-wise data, confirming that venous structure is not the dominant source of contrast in these rsfMRI metrics. Finally, the models presented can be used to correct this venous bias in rsfMRI metrics.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".