Evaluating BOLD functional MRI biophysical simulation approaches: Impact of vascular geometry, magnetic field calculations, and water diffusion models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Biophysical simulations have guided the development of blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) functional MRI (fMRI) acquisitions and signal models that relate the BOLD signal to the underlying physiology, such as calibrated BOLD and vascular fingerprinting. Numerous simulation techniques have been developed, however, few of them have been directly compared, thus limiting the assessment of the accuracy and interchangeability of these methods as well as the accuracy of the quantitative techniques derived from them. In this work, we compared the accuracy and computational demands of eight previously published simulation approaches that adopt different geometries (ranging from infinite cylinders to synthetic vascular anatomical networks (VANs)), field offset calculations (analytical and Fourier-based), and water diffusion implementations (Monte Carlo and convolution-based), all of which are available in an open-source Python toolkit, BOLDsωimsuite. The reference simulation approach for comparison used three-dimensional infinite cylinders, analytical field offsets, and Monte Carlo diffusion. When compared with the reference approach, most of the simulations, including two- and three-dimensional geometries, were in excellent agreement when assuming the intravascular signal contribution was small. Two commonly employed simulation approaches were notably biased; both used two-dimensional geometries with overly simplified vasculature or field offset calculations. In general, the simulated intravascular signal was the least consistent across approaches, thus potentially resulting in larger errors when the intravascular signal contribution is large. Lastly, the VAN results were in good agreement with the reference but they diverged slightly, yet systematically, from each other at smaller radii (≲3 μm), primarily driven by intravascular signal differences. We conclude, therefore, that the reference approach is an attractive option for exploratory simulations in the many cases where anatomical and haemodynamic realism is not needed, balancing ease of implementation, accessibility, versatility, computational efficiency, accuracy of results, and interpretability. These findings help pave the way for a broader adoption of forward modelling of the BOLD signal and more reliable interpretations of biophysical simulations aiming to develop quantitative models of the BOLD signal.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".