ArticleRoyal Society open science2020
Suggestions for improving the visualization of magnetic resonance spectroscopy voxels and spectra.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diazepam modulates anterior cingulate glutamate levels in people at clinical high-risk for psychosis.The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology · 2026Trial
- Effect of naltrexone pretreatment on ketamine-induced glutamatergic activity and symptoms of depression: a randomized crossover study.Nature medicine · 2025Trial
- Cue-induced Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy of Glutamate in Addiction Research: Current Evidence, Pros, and Cons.Clinical psychopharmacology and neuroscience : the official scientific journal of the Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2025Review
- Age-related GABA- and glutamatergic differences in SMA during bimanual coordination.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Characterizing cerebral metabolite profiles in anorexia and bulimia nervosa and their associations with habitual behavior.Translational psychiatry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) has seen an increase in popularity as a method for studying the human brain. This approach is dependent on voxel localization and spectral quality, knowledge of which are essential for judging the validity and robustness of any analysis. As such, visualization plays a central role in appropriately communicating MRS studies. The quality of data visualization has been shown to be poor in a number of biomedical fields and so we sought to appraise this in MRS papers. To do this, we conducted a survey of the psychiatric single-voxel MRS literature. This revealed a generally low standard, with a significant proportion of papers not providing the voxel location and spectral quality information required to judge their validity or replicate the experiment. Based on this, we then present a series of suggestions for a minimal standard for MRS data visualization. The primary point of these is that both voxel location and MRS spectra be presented from all participants. Participant group membership should be indicated where more than one is included in the experiment (e.g. patients and controls). A set of suggested figure layouts that fulfil these requirements are presented with sample code provided to produce these (github.com/nwd2918/MRS-voxel-plot).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.