MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392344516 · doi:10.1101/2024.02.27.582249

Linewidth-related bias in modelled concentration estimates from GABA-edited <sup>1</sup> H-MRS

2024· preprint· en· W4392344516 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander R. Craven, Tiffany Bell, Lars Ersland, Ashley D. Harris, Kenneth Hugdahl, Georg Oeltzschner

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsLaser linewidthPhysicsChemistryQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract J-difference-edited MRS is widely used to study GABA in the human brain. Editing for low-concentration target molecules (such as GABA) typically exhibits lower signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) than conventional non-edited MRS, varying with acquisition region, volume and duration. Moreover, spectral lineshape may be influenced by age-, pathology-, or brain-region-specific effects of metabolite T 2 , or by task-related blood-oxygen level dependent (BOLD) changes in functional MRS contexts. Differences in both SNR and lineshape may have systematic effects on concentration estimates derived from spectral modelling. The present study characterises the impact of lineshape and SNR on GABA+ estimates from different modelling algorithms: FSL-MRS, Gannet, LCModel, Osprey, spant and Tarquin. Publicly available multi-site GABA-edited data (222 healthy subjects from 20 sites; conventional MEGA-PRESS editing; TE = 68 ms) were pre-processed with a standardised pipeline, then filtered to apply controlled levels of Lorentzian and Gaussian linebroadening and SNR reduction. Increased Lorentzian linewidth was associated with a 2-5% decrease in GABA+ estimates per Hz, observed consistently (albeit to varying degrees) across datasets and most algorithms. Weaker, often opposing effects were observed for Gaussian linebroadening. Variations are likely caused by differing baseline parametrization and lineshape constraints between models. Effects of linewidth on other metabolites (e.g., Glx and tCr) varied, suggesting that a linewidth confound may persist after scaling to an internal reference. These findings indicate a potentially significant confound for studies where linewidth may differ systematically between groups or experimental conditions, e.g. due to T 2 differences between brain regions, age, or pathology, or varying T 2 * due to BOLD-related changes. We conclude that linewidth effects need to be rigorously considered during experimental design and data processing, for example by incorporating linewidth into statistical analysis of modelling outcomes or development of appropriate lineshape matching algorithms. Highlights In-vivo GABA-edited 1 H-MRS data from 222 subjects were filtered to simulate varying linewidth and SNR conditions Filtered datasets were quantified with six different modelling algorithms to assess the impact of linewidth and SNR on the metabolite level estimates. Synthetic spectra with controlled GABA+ levels and in-vivo-like background signals (applied incrementally) were also assessed. For both in-vivo and synthetic datasets, GABA+ estimates showed a significant association with Lorentzian linewidth across most algorithms, even for small changes in linewidth. Weaker, often opposing associations were observed for Gaussian linebroadening. This indicates a potentially significant confound for studies where linewidth or lineshape may be expected to differ, even slightly, between groups. The need for appropriate strategies to account for lineshape differences is highlighted. Abstract Figure Graphical Abstract To assess the degree to which aspects of linewidth, lineshape and SNR may confound GABA+ estimates, a collection of in-vivo datasets were quantified with six modelling algorithms, with linebroadening and SNR varied experimentally. Most algorithms showed a strong association between GABA+ estimate and Lorentzian linebroadening (2-5% decrease per Hz), with weaker effects for Gaussian broadening. This indicates a potentially significant confound in cases of differing relaxation parameters between groups or experimental conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→