MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802061980 · doi:10.1002/jmri.26046

Comparing the reproducibility of commonly used magnetic resonance spectroscopy techniques to quantify cerebral glutathione

2018· article· en· W2802061980 on OpenAlexaff
S. Andrea Wijtenburg, Jamie Near, Stephanie A. Korenic, Frank Gaston, Hongji Chen, Mark E. Mikkelsen, Shuo Chen, Peter Kochunov, L. Elliot Hong, Laura M. Rowland

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSulfur Compounds in Biology
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsReproducibilityNuclear medicineImaging phantomGlutathioneCoefficient of variationMagnetic resonance imagingNuclear magnetic resonanceMedicineReplicateMetaboliteChemistryBiomedical engineeringInternal medicineMathematicsRadiologyChromatographyPhysicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cerebral glutathione (GSH), a marker of oxidative stress, has been quantified in neurodegenerative diseases and psychiatric disorders using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS). Using a reproducible MRS technique is important, as it minimizes the impact of measurement technique variability on the study results and ensures that other studies can replicate the results. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that very short echo time (TE) acquisitions would have comparable reproducibility to a long TE MEGA-PRESS acquisition, and that the short TE PRESS acquisition would have the poorest reproducibility. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. SUBJECTS/PHANTOMS: Ten healthy adults were scanned during two visits, and six metabolite phantoms containing varying concentrations of GSH and metabolites with resonances that overlap with GSH were scanned once. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: At 3T we acquired MRS data using four different sequences: PRESS, SPECIAL, PR-STEAM, and MEGA-PRESS. ASSESSMENT: Reproducibility of each MRS sequence across two visits was assessed. STATISTICAL TESTS: Mean coefficients of variation (CV) and mean absolute difference (AD) were used to assess reproducibility. Linear regressions were performed on data collected from phantoms to examine the agreement between known and quantified levels of GSH. RESULTS: ≥ 0.98 or higher) using all methods. DATA CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that GSH can be quantified reproducibly without the use of spectral editing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:176-183.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.827

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Magnetic Resonance ImagingSame topicSulfur Compounds in BiologyFrench-language works237,207