Terminology and concepts for the characterization of in vivo MR spectroscopy methods and MR spectra: Background and experts' consensus recommendations
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
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.
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 it