ArticlePhysics in medicine and biology2017
Impact of physiological noise correction on detecting blood oxygenation level-dependent contrast in the breast.
Article in Physics in medicine and biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- fMRI studies evaluating central respiratory control in humans.Frontiers in neural circuits · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Physiological fluctuations are expected to be a dominant source of noise in blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) experiments to assess tumour oxygenation and angiogenesis. This work investigates the impact of various physiological noise regressors: retrospective image correction (RETROICOR), heart rate (HR) and respiratory volume per unit time (RVT), on signal variance and the detection of BOLD contrast in the breast in response to a modulated respiratory stimulus. BOLD MRI was performed at 3 T in ten volunteers at rest and during cycles of oxygen and carbogen gas breathing. RETROICOR was optimized using F-tests to determine which cardiac and respiratory phase terms accounted for a significant amount of signal variance. A nested regression analysis was performed to assess the effect of RETROICOR, HR and RVT on the model fit residuals, temporal signal-to-noise ratio, and BOLD activation parameters. The optimized RETROICOR model accounted for the largest amount of signal variance ([Formula: see text] = 3.3 ± 2.1%) and improved the detection of BOLD activation (P = 0.002). Inclusion of HR and RVT regressors explained additional signal variance, but had a negative impact on activation parameter estimation (P < 0.001). Fluctuations in HR and RVT appeared to be correlated with the stimulus and may contribute to apparent BOLD signal reactivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.