Results of the 2023 ISBI challenge to reduce GABA-edited MRS acquisition time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Use a conference challenge format to compare machine learning-based gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-edited magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) reconstruction models using one-quarter of the transients typically acquired during a complete scan. METHODS: There were three tracks: Track 1: simulated data, Track 2: identical acquisition parameters with in vivo data, and Track 3: different acquisition parameters with in vivo data. The mean squared error, signal-to-noise ratio, linewidth, and a proposed shape score metric were used to quantify model performance. Challenge organizers provided open access to a baseline model, simulated noise-free data, guides for adding synthetic noise, and in vivo data. RESULTS: Three submissions were compared. A covariance matrix convolutional neural network model was most successful for Track 1. A vision transformer model operating on a spectrogram data representation was most successful for Tracks 2 and 3. Deep learning (DL) reconstructions with 80 transients achieved equivalent or better SNR, linewidth and fit error compared to conventional 320 transient reconstructions. However, some DL models optimized linewidth and SNR without actually improving overall spectral quality, indicating a need for more robust metrics. CONCLUSION: DL-based reconstruction pipelines have the promise to reduce the number of transients required for GABA-edited MRS.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".