On the impact of B0 shimming algorithms on single‐voxel MR spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the impact of different B0 shimming algorithms on MRS. METHODS: B0 field maps and single-voxel MR spectroscopy were acquired in the prefrontal cortex of five volunteers at 3 T using five different B0 shimming approaches. B0 shimming was achieved using Siemens' proprietary shim algorithm, in addition to the Pseudo-Inverse (PI), Quadratic Programming (QuadProg), Least Squares (LSq), and Gradient optimization (Grad) algorithms. The standard deviation of the shimmed B0 field, as well as the SNR and FWHM of the measured metabolites, was used to evaluate the performance of each B0 shimming algorithm. RESULTS: Compared to Siemens's shim, significant reductions (p < 0.01) in the standard deviation of the B0 field distribution within the MRS voxel were observed for the PI, QuadProg, and Grad algorithms (3.8 Hz, 7.3 Hz, and 3.9 Hz respectively, compared to 11.5 Hz for Siemens), but not for the LSq (12.9 Hz) algorithm. Moreover, significantly increased SNR and reduced FWHM for the N-acetylaspartate metabolite were consistent with the improvement in B0 homogeneity for the aforementioned shimming algorithms. CONCLUSION: Here, we demonstrate that the choice of B0 shimming algorithm can have a significant impact on the quality of MR spectra and that significant improvements in spectrum quality could be achieved by using alternatives to the default vendor approach.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".