ArticleNeuroImage2025
Functional ultrasound as a quantitative approach for measuring functional hyperemia in aging models.
Article in NeuroImage, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neurovascular interactions in the ageing heart.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2026Review
- Simultaneous Functional Ultrasound, Intrinsic Optical Signal and Widefield Calcium Neuroimaging.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Induction of neurodegeneration in the hippocampus of senescence-accelerated mouse-prone 8 (SAMP8) mice by blood-brain barrier-crossing serum amyloid P component.Journal of neuroinflammation · 2026Article
- A Minimally Invasive Framework Reveals Region-Specific Cerebrovascular Remodeling in Aging Using Intravital Functional Ultrasound Imaging and Ultrasound Localization Microscopy (fUS-ULM).Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Robust functional ultrasound imaging in the awake and behaving brain: A systematic framework for motion artifact removal.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUNDS AND
objectivesAging is associated with impaired cerebrovascular function, including reduced functional hyperemia (FH), which contributes to cognitive decline and dementia. Unraveling the mechanisms responsible for FH decline during aging is crucial for developing interventions to promote healthy brain aging and mitigate cognitive impairment. Currently, laser speckle contrast imaging (LSCI) serves as the standard method for assessing FH in mouse models of cognitive dysfunction and aging. However, as a terminal procedure, long-term monitoring of changes in FH using LSCI is not possible. Functional ultrasound imaging (fUS) has improved spatial and temporal resolution compared to LSCI and is a promising alternative, but surgical manipulation of the mouse model is necessary to assess FH using fUS. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsHere, we validated fUS as a novel method for assessing FH and vascular density in mice using a chronological aging model and compared different surgical paradigms. Young and aged mice underwent consecutive imaging with fUS and LSCI following surgical placement of a cranial window. Mice were imaged either acutely or 14 days post window placement.
resultsOur findings revealed a robust correlation between the FH measurements obtained from fUS and LSCI in mice allowed to recover for 14 days post window-implantation, underscoring the reliability of fUS as a measurement tool. Similarly, the ability of fUS ultrasound localization microscopy (ULM) to detect age-related vascular rarefaction was improved by the 14-day recovery time after window implantation. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: This study not only highlights the potential of fUS in FH assessment but also suggests the importance of recovery time post-surgery for optimal cerebrovascular imaging results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.