Cited by 216Advanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Regional Differences in the CBF and BOLD Responses to Hypercapnia: A Combined PET and fMRI Study

Abstract

Previous fMRI studies of the cerebrovascular response to hypercapnia have shown signal change in cerebral gray matter, but not in white matter. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to compare (15)O PET and T *(2)-weighted MRI during a hypercapnic challenge. The measurements were performed under similar conditions of hypercapnia, which were induced by inhalation of 5 or 7% CO(2). The baseline rCBF values were 65.1 ml hg(-1) min(-1) for temporal gray matter and 28.7 ml hg(-1) min(-1) for white matter. By linear regression, the increases in rCBF during hypercapnia were 23.0 and 7. 2 ml hg(-1) min(-1) kPa(-1) for gray and white matter. The signal changes were 6.9 and 1.9% for the FLASH sequence and were 3.8 and 1. 7% for the EPI sequence at comparable echo times. The regional differences in percentage signal change were significantly reduced when normalized by regional flow values. A deconvolution analysis is introduced to model the relation between fMRI signal and end-expiratory CO(2) level. Temporal parameters, such as mean transit time, were derived from this analysis and suggested a slower response in white matter than in gray matter regions. It was concluded that the differences in the magnitude of the fMRI response can largely be attributed to differences in flow and that there is a considerable difference in the time course of the response between gray and white matter.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1006/nimg.1999.0526

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 29 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Ibler, 1992, Kapnometri, Ugeskr. Læger, 154, 1161
  2. Rostrup, 1996, A combined PET and MRI study of human CBF in hypercapnia, Proc. Int. Soc. Magn. Reson. Med., 1762

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 216

Metadata

Authors
Rostrup, E., Law, I., Blinkenberg, M., Larsson, H. B. W., Born, A. P., Holm, S., & Paulson, O. B.
Affiliations
Hvidovre Hospital (DK)
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2000-02
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
87-97
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2075514568
Cited by
216
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 11
FWCI
3.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
Keywords
hypercapnia, cerebral blood flow, BOLD signal, cerebrovascular response, gray matter, white matter, regional variation, deconvolution, mean transit time, end-expiratory CO2, 15O PET, T2-weighted MRI, FLASH sequence
MeSH terms
Adult, Blood Flow Velocity, Brain, Brain Mapping, Carbon Dioxide, Female, Humans, Hypercapnia, Image Enhancement, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Oxygen, Reference Values, Regional Blood Flow, Tomography, Emission-Computed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review