Abnormalities of regional brain activity in patients with asymptomatic internal carotid artery occlusion: a resting-state fMRI study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Asymptomatic internal carotid artery occlusion (aICAO) disrupts cerebral blood flow and can impair brain function. While previous research has primarily focused on abnormal functional connectivity between brain networks or regions in aICAO patients, less is known about specific regional brain activity alterations. This study investigated changes in local brain activity and their associations with cognitive function in patients with aICAO. METHODS: A total of 26 unilateral patients with aICAO without MRI lesions and 25 matched healthy controls (HCs) underwent resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging and neuropsychological assessment. Local brain activity in patients with aICAO was investigated using percentage amplitude of fluctuation (PerAF) and degree centrality (DC). The association between the abnormal regional brain activity in patients with aICAO and cognitive function was also explored. RESULTS: Compared with HCs, patients with aICAO showed decreased PerAF in the ipsilateral (occlusion side, right) superior temporal gyrus (temporal pole), ipsilateral inferior frontal gyrus (triangular part). In addition, decreased DC was detected in the ipsilateral cuneus of patients with aICAO, while increased DC was observed in the contralateral (opposite to occlusion side, left) precuneus and contralateral inferior frontal gyrus (triangular part) among patients with aICAO. Furthermore, the DC value of contralateral precuneus in aICAO group was negatively correlated with Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) (r = -0.612, p = 0.002), Forward Digit Span Test (FDST) (r = -0.677, p = 0.001), and Backward Digit Span Test (BDST) (r = -0.531, p = 0.011) scores. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings revealed abnormal local spontaneous brain activity within brain regions associated with cognitive functions in patients with unilateral aICAO. Notably, some of these abnormalities correlated with their cognitive impairments. This study contributes to the understanding of potential neural mechanisms underlying cognitive dysfunction in unilateral aICAO patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".