MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392266036 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adm7605

Mapping cerebral perfusion in mice under various anesthesia levels using highly sensitive BOLD MRI with transient hypoxia

2024· article· en· W4392266036 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Thuy Thi Le, Geun Ho Im, Chan Hee Lee, Sang‐Han Choi, Seong‐Gi Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsCerebral perfusion pressureCerebral blood flowDexmedetomidineIsofluranePerfusionMedicineAnesthesiaCerebral blood volumeHypoxia (environmental)Blood volumeBlood flowPerfusion scanningCardiologyChemistryOxygen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cerebral perfusion is critical for the early detection of neurological diseases and for effectively monitoring disease progression and treatment responses. Mouse models are widely used in brain research, often under anesthesia, which can affect vascular physiology. However, the impact of anesthesia on regional cerebral blood volume and flow in mice has not been thoroughly investigated. In this study, we have developed a whole-brain perfusion MRI approach by using a 5-second nitrogen gas stimulus under inhalational anesthetics to induce transient BOLD dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC). This method proved to be highly sensitive, repeatable within each imaging session, and across four weekly sessions. Relative cerebral blood volumes measured by BOLD DSC agree well with those by contrast agents. Quantitative cerebral blood volume and flow metrics were successfully measured in mice under dexmedetomidine and various isoflurane doses using both total vasculature-sensitive gradient-echo and microvasculature-sensitive spin-echo BOLD MRI. Dexmedetomidine reduces cerebral perfusion, while isoflurane increases cerebral perfusion in a dose-dependent manner.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207