MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414946015 · doi:10.1101/2025.10.08.680976

Biophysical simulations of fMRI responses using realistic microvascular models: insights into distinct hemodynamics in humans and mice

2025· preprint· en· W4414946015 on OpenAlexafffund
Grant Hartung, Avery Berman, Sava Sakadžić, Andreas A. Linninger, David A. Boas, Jon̈athan R. Polimeni

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringAthinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General HospitalNational Institutes of HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCentre d'Imagerie BioMédicale
KeywordsHemodynamicsNeurovascular bundleFunctional magnetic resonance imagingHuman brainHaemodynamic responsePremovement neuronal activityMicrocirculationMagnetic resonance imagingBrain mapping

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) is broadly used to measure human brain activity, however the hemodynamic changes that comprise the fMRI response to neuronal activity are often interpreted using microscopy data in mice. These microscopy data provide ground-truth observations of how individual blood vessels respond to neuronal activity and thus form the basis of our fundamental understanding of neurovascular coupling. Although these invasive experiments provide invaluable insight, there are striking differences in the vascular architecture of mouse and human brains that may influence the hemodynamic response. Motivated by this, we developed a biophysical modeling framework for realistic hemodynamic simulations in both mouse and human cerebral cortex. For this, we utilized Vascular Anatomical Network (VAN) models that explicitly represent the full microvascular tree as a single connected network, originally based on anatomical reconstructions from a given location of mouse cerebral cortex. We extended the VAN modeling framework using synthetic VAN models representing the microvascular network at a single location of the human cerebral cortex. To account for larger size and complexity of the human VAN models, we developed an efficient computational framework to simulate the full hemodynamic responses in this human model and compared the simulated fMRI responses between mice and humans. Our biophysical simulations are based entirely on first principles (e.g., conservation of mass); model parameter values were fixed across all simulations, not tuned to fit data, as they represent meaningful physical constants taken from previous measurements. Only two simple calibrations were tuned for each simulation, to match baseline perfusion rates (blood flow) and oxygen extraction (OEF). Our results show that differences in microvasculature indeed influenced the hemodynamic response and led to observable differences in timing-e.g., the simulated fMRI response peak in humans was delayed by ~2 s compared to mice, consistent with prior fMRI observations. While there are many known differences in vascular architecture in rodents and humans, we also discovered that, unexpectedly, an asymmetry in the numbers of branches of the penetrating intracortical arterioles and venules appears to be conserved across species. We demonstrate through further simulations that this anatomical property may also be needed for suitable hemodynamic responses. Our framework thus provides a valuable tool for bridging in-vivo microscopy of microvascular dynamics to human fMRI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→