Brain glucose extraction is fixed at 10% despite twofold variability in resting cerebral blood flow in healthy humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the resting, non-stimulated brain, metabolic demands are met exclusively by the delivery and extraction of glucose and oxygen at an ~6:1 ratio. Amongst healthy people at rest, there is marked variability in resting global cerebral blood flow (CBF) yet remarkably stable concentrations of circulating glucose and oxygen. Thus, we would expect interindividual variability in resting CBF to be inversely related to oxygen and glucose extraction, maintaining oxidative glucose metabolism. Herein, we investigated the fundamental relationship between CBF and substrate extraction in 75 healthy adults (27.3 ± 4.8 years) with resting measures of CBF and cross-brain concentrations of oxygen and glucose. We observed that the marked interindividual variability in CBF (<500 to >1200 mL/min) is inversely related to oxygen extraction ( R 2 = 0.85, p = 0.005) but not glucose extraction ( R 2 = 0.30, p = 0.273). The metabolic rates of oxygen and glucose (CMRO 2 and CMRglc) are both directly correlated with CBF. However, there was a 1.6-fold greater slope for CMRglc-CBF, compared to CMRO 2 -CBF ( p = 0.040). These findings indicate that the resting brain extracts more oxygen when delivery is low, maintaining stable CMRO 2 and ATP production. Despite glucose being the primary oxidized substrate, the brain’s ability to adjust its extraction is limited, making CMRglc more dependent on delivery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".