Effect of <i>J</i> coupling on 1.3‐ppm lipid methylene signal acquired with localised proton MRS at 3 T
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this work was to investigate the effect of J-coupling interactions on the quantification and T2 determination of 1.3-ppm lipid methylene protons at 3 T. The response of the 1.3-ppm protons of hexanoic, heptanoic, octanoic, linoleic and oleic acid was measured as a function of point-resolved spectroscopy (PRESS) and stimulated echo acquisition mode (STEAM) TE. In addition, a narrow-bandwidth refocusing PRESS sequence designed to rewind J-coupling evolution of the 1.3-ppm protons was applied to the five fatty acids, to corn oil and to tibial bone marrow of six healthy volunteers. Peak areas were plotted as a function of TE, and data were fitted to monoexponentially decaying functions to determine Mo (the extrapolated area for TE = 0 ms) and T2 values. In phantoms, rewinding J-coupling evolution resulted in 198%, 64%, 44%, 20% and 15% higher T2 values for heptanoic, octanoic, linoleic and oleic acid, and corn oil, respectively, compared with those obtained with standard PRESS. The narrow-bandwidth PRESS sequence also resulted in significant changes in Mo , namely -77%, -22%, 28%, 23% and 28% for heptanoic, octanoic, linoleic and oleic acid, and corn oil, respectively. T2 values obtained with STEAM were closer to the values measured with narrow-bandwidth PRESS. On average, in tibial bone marrow (six volunteers) rewinding J-coupling evolution resulted in 21% ± 3% and 9 % ± 1% higher Mo and T2 values, respectively. This work demonstrates that the consequence of neglecting to consider scalar coupling effects on the quantification of 1.3-ppm lipid methylene protons and their T2 values is not negligible. The linoleic and oleic acid T2 results indicate that T2 measures of lipids with standard MRS techniques are dependent on lipid composition.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".