Comparison of seven modelling algorithms for GABA-edited <sup>1</sup> H-MRS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Edited MRS sequences are widely used for studying GABA in the human brain. Several algorithms are available for modelling these data, deriving metabolite concentration estimates through peak fitting or a linear combination of basis spectra. The present study compares seven such algorithms, using data obtained in a large multi-site study. GABA-edited (GABA+, TE = 68 ms MEGA-PRESS) data from 222 subjects at 20 sites were processed via a standardised pipeline, before modelling with FSL-MRS, Gannet, AMARES, QUEST, LCModel, Osprey and Tarquin, using standardised vendor-specific basis sets (for GE, Philips and Siemens) where appropriate. After referencing metabolite estimates (to water or creatine), systematic differences in scale were observed between datasets acquired on different vendors’ hardware, presenting across algorithms. Scale differences across algorithms were also observed. Using the correlation between metabolite estimates and voxel tissue fraction as a benchmark, most algorithms were found to be similarly effective in detecting differences in GABA+. An inter-class correlation across all algorithms showed single-rater consistency for GABA+ estimates of around 0.38, indicating moderate agreement. Upon inclusion of a basis set component explicitly modelling the macromolecule signal underlying the observed 3.0 ppm GABA peaks, single-rater consistency improved to 0.44. Correlation between discrete pairs of algorithms varied, and was concerningly weak in some cases. Our findings highlight the need for consensus on appropriate modelling parameters across different algorithms, and for detailed reporting of the parameters adopted in individual studies to ensure reproducibility and meaningful comparison of outcomes between different studies. Highlights GABA-edited MRS data from 222 healthy adults across 20 research sites were analyzed Data were modelled using seven different algorithms, yielding GABA+ and Glx estimates Moderate agreement was seen across all the tested algorithms Adding a component to represent co-edited macromolecule signals improved concordance Baseline modelling emerged as major factor differentiating outcomes
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".