Comparison of Multivendor Single-Voxel MR Spectroscopy Data Acquired in Healthy Brain at 26 Sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The hardware and software differences between MR vendors and individual sites influence the quantification of MR spectroscopy data. An analysis of a large data set may help to better understand sources of the total variance in quantified metabolite levels. Purpose To compare multisite quantitative brain MR spectroscopy data acquired in healthy participants at 26 sites by using the vendor-supplied single-voxel point-resolved spectroscopy (PRESS) sequence. Materials and Methods An MR spectroscopy protocol to acquire short-echo-time PRESS data from the midparietal region of the brain was disseminated to 26 research sites operating 3.0-T MR scanners from three different vendors. In this prospective study, healthy participants were scanned between July 2016 and December 2017. Data were analyzed by using software with simulated basis sets customized for each vendor implementation. The proportion of total variance attributed to vendor-, site-, and participant-related effects was estimated by using a linear mixed-effects model. P values were derived through parametric bootstrapping of the linear mixed-effects models (denoted Pboot). Results In total, 296 participants (mean age, 26 years ± 4.6; 155 women and 141 men) were scanned. Good-quality data were recorded from all sites, as evidenced by a consistent linewidth of N-acetylaspartate (range, 4.4–5.0 Hz), signal-to-noise ratio (range, 174–289), and low Cramér-Rao lower bounds (≤5%) for all of the major metabolites. Among the major metabolites, no vendor effects were found for levels of myo-inositol (Pboot > .90), N-acetylaspartate and N-acetylaspartylglutamate (Pboot = .13), or glutamate and glutamine (Pboot = .11). Among the smaller resonances, no vendor effects were found for ascorbate (Pboot = .08), aspartate (Pboot > .90), glutathione (Pboot > .90), or lactate (Pboot = .28). Conclusion Multisite multivendor single-voxel MR spectroscopy studies performed at 3.0 T can yield results that are coherent across vendors, provided that vendor differences in pulse sequence implementation are accounted for in data analysis. However, the site-related effects on variability were more profound and suggest the need for further standardization of spectroscopic protocols. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".