4.7 Article

Sources of systematic bias in hypercapnia-calibrated functional MRI estimation of oxygen metabolism

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 34, 期 1, 页码 35-43

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.08.033

关键词

q1q

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [G0100811] Funding Source: Medline
  2. MRC [G0100811] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [G0100811] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The change in cerebral rate of oxidative metabolism (CMPO2) during neural activation may be estimated from blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and arterial spin-labeling (ASL) fMRI measurements. The established method relies on an epoch of iso-metabolic blood flow increase, typically induced by CO2 breathing, to calibrate the BOLD-CBF relationship at resting-state CMRO2. Here, we discuss the systematic bias in CMRO2 -CBF data that can be introduced depending on the value derived for the calibration constant (M) from the CO2 breathing epoch. We demonstrate that the fidelity of BOLD-CBF data acquired during the neural activation task have low impact on the tightness of CMRO2-CBF coupling, as well as the coupling slope, when the derived calibration value is of a relatively moderate amplitude (M in the range of, or greater than, 10-15 at 1.5 T). Via the standard reformulation of a grid in BOLD-CBF space into the CMRO2 -CBF plane, we demonstrate the non-linear transformation that takes place and the sources of systematic bias that result. We find that the outcome of a neurovascular coupling study may be predicted to a large extent purely from the value of the calibration constant, M, that is used. Our results suggest that the accurate determination of M is of greater importance than thought previously and indicate that BOLD-CBF data must always be supplied when considering CMRO2-CBF behavior in a particular brain region. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据