Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy in the brain: Report of AAPM MR Task Group #9
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AAPM Magnetic Resonance Task Group #9 on proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) in the brain was formed to provide a reference document for acquiring and processing proton (1H) MRS acquired from brain tissue. MRS is becoming a common adjunct to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), especially for the differential diagnosis of tumors in the brain. Even though MR imaging is an offshoot of MR spectroscopy, clinical medical physicists familiar with MRI may not be familiar with many of the common practical issues regarding MRS. Numerous research laboratories perform in vivo MRS on other magnetic nuclei, such as 31P, 13C, and 19F. However, most commercial MR scanners are generally only capable of spectroscopy using the signals from protons. Therefore this paper is of limited scope, giving an overview of technical issues that are important to clinical proton MRS, discussing some common clinical MRS problems, and suggesting how they might be resolved. Some fundamental issues covered in this paper are common to many forms of magnetic resonance spectroscopy and are written as an introduction for the reader to these methods. These topics include shimming, eddy currents, spatial localization, solvent saturation, and post-processing methods. The document also provides an extensive review of the literature to guide the practicing medical physicist to resources that may be useful for dealing with issues not covered in the current article.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it