Terminology and concepts for the characterization of in vivo MR spectroscopy methods and MR spectra: Background and experts' consensus recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With a 40-year history of use for in vivo studies, the terminology used to describe the methodology and results of magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) has grown substantially and is not consistent in many aspects. Given the platform offered by this special issue on advanced MRS methodology, the authors decided to describe many of the implicated terms, to pinpoint differences in their meanings and to suggest specific uses or definitions. This work covers terms used to describe all aspects of MRS, starting from the description of the MR signal and its theoretical basis to acquisition methods, processing and to quantification procedures, as well as terms involved in describing results, for example, those used with regard to aspects of quality, reproducibility or indications of error. The descriptions of the meanings of such terms emerge from the descriptions of the basic concepts involved in MRS methods and examinations. This paper also includes specific suggestions for future use of terms where multiple conventions have emerged or coexisted in the past.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.218 | 0.248 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.022 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".