Comparison of compartmental analytical BOLD fMRI models against Monte Carlo simulations performed over cortical micro-angiograms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BOLD fMRI arises from a physiological and physical cascade of events taking place at the level of the cortical microvasculature which constitutes a medium with complex geometry. Several analytical models of the BOLD contrast have been developed but these have not been compared directly against detailed bottom-up modeling methods. Using a 3D modeling method based on experimentally measured images of mice microvasculature and Monte Carlo simulations, we quantified the accuracy of two analytical models to predict the amplitude of the BOLD response from 1.5T to 7T, for different TE and for both gradient echo and spin echo acquisition protocols. We also showed that accounting for the tridimensional structure of the microvasculature results in more accurate prediction of the BOLD amplitude, even if the values for SO 2 were averaged across individual vascular compartments. A secondary finding is that modeling the venous compartment as two individual compartments results in more accurate prediction of the BOLD amplitude compared to standard homogenous venous modeling, arising from the bimodal distribution of venous SO 2 across the microvasculature in our data.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".