MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392159583 · doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00270.2023

Brain atrophy, reduced cerebral perfusion, arterial stiffening, and wall thickening with aging coincide with stimulus-specific changes in fMRI-BOLD responses

2024· article· en· W4392159583 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicole S. Coverdale, Allen A. Champagne, Matti D. Allen, Joshua C. Tremblay, Tarrah Ethier, Juan Fernández-Ruíz, Rory A. Marshall, Rebecca E. K. MacPherson, Kyra E. Pyke, Douglas J. Cook, T. Dylan Olver

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityUniversity of SaskatchewanOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)AtrophyNeuroscienceBrain agingThickeningMedicinePsychologyPathologyCardiologyCognitionCognitive psychologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cerebral perfusion was lower in old versus young adults. %Blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) responses to an isometabolic stimulus and gray matter volume were decreased in old versus young adults and associated with arterial stiffening and wall thickening. The increased %BOLD response to a neurometabolic stimulus appeared unaffected by age; however, the old group displayed disinhibition of the default mode network during the stimulus. Thus, age-related alterations in cerebral %BOLD responses were stimulus specific and related to arterial remodeling.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology→Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→