Diffusion‐weighted <scp>MR</scp> spectroscopy: Consensus, recommendations, and resources from acquisition to modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain cell structure and function reflect neurodevelopment, plasticity, and aging; and changes can help flag pathological processes such as neurodegeneration and neuroinflammation. Accurate and quantitative methods to noninvasively disentangle cellular structural features are needed and are a substantial focus of brain research. Diffusion-weighted MRS (dMRS) gives access to diffusion properties of endogenous intracellular brain metabolites that are preferentially located inside specific brain cell populations. Despite its great potential, dMRS remains a challenging technique on all levels: from the data acquisition to the analysis, quantification, modeling, and interpretation of results. These challenges were the motivation behind the organization of the Lorentz Center workshop on "Best Practices & Tools for Diffusion MR Spectroscopy" held in Leiden, the Netherlands, in September 2021. During the workshop, the dMRS community established a set of recommendations to execute robust dMRS studies. This paper provides a description of the steps needed for acquiring, processing, fitting, and modeling dMRS data, and provides links to useful resources.
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 | 0.072 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.013 |
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".