MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sources of Variability and Improvements in the Measure of GABA using MEGA-PRESS at 3T

2019· review· en· W3003994860 on OpenAlexaff
Diana Harasym, Aimee J. Nelson, Michael D. Noseworthy

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGABA and Rice Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceAffect (linguistics)gamma-Aminobutyric acidBiologyPsychologyBiochemistryCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the emergence of research investigating the role of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) in neurological and neuropsychiatric diseases, it is important to understand the variability in GABA as measured through magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) and how this variability may affect the interpretation of results. This review addresses methodological sources of variation documented in the current literature on the measurement of GABA. GABA differences related to hardware, acquisition, post-processing and quantification are discussed, and methods to account for or remove this variability are highlighted. Additionally, factors such as time, age, biological sex, hormones, and brain region, which may affect GABA MRS, are reviewed to aid in study design. This review is meant to assist in measuring GABA comparably between studies and improve GABA methodology to allow the use of GABA MRS in a clinical setting in the future.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Biomedical EngineeringSame topicGABA and Rice ResearchFrench-language works237,207