Influence of scanning plane on Human Spinal Cord functional Magnetic Resonance echo planar imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) is based on the Blood Oxygenation Level Dependent contrast and has been exploited for the indirect study of the neuronal activity within both the brain and the spinal cord. However, the interpretation of spinal cord fMRI (scfMRI) is still controversial and its adoption is rather restricted because of technical limitations. Overcoming these limitations would have a beneficial effect for the assessment and follow-up of spinal injuries and neurodegenerative diseases. PURPOSE: This study was aimed at systematically verifying whether sagittal scanning in scfMRI using EPI readout is a viable alternative to the more common axial scanning, and at optimizing a pipeline for EPI-based scfMRI data analysis, based on Spinal Cord Toolbox (SCT). METHODS: Forty-five healthy subjects underwent MRI acquisition in a Philips Achieva 3T MRI scanner. T2*-weighted fMRI data were acquired using a GE-EPI sequence along sagittal and axial planes during an isometric motor task. Differences on benchmarks were assessed via paired two-sample t-test at p < 0.05. RESULTS: We investigated the impact of the acquisition strategy by means of various metrics such as Temporal Signal to Noise Ratio (tSNR), Dice Coefficient to assess geometric distortions, Reproducibility and BOLD signal sensitivity to the stimulus. tSNR was higher in axial than in sagittal scans, as well as reproducibility within the whole cord mask (t = 7.4, p < 0.01) and within the GM mask (t = 4.2, p < 0.01). The other benchmarks, associated with distortion and functional response, showed no difference between images obtained along the axial and sagittal planes. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative metrics of data quality suggest that axial scanning would be the optimal choice. We conclude that axial acquisition is advantageous specially to mitigate the effects of physiological noise and to minimize inter-subject variance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".