ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2023
Impact of acquisition and modeling parameters on test-retest reproducibility of edited GABA.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Literature values for within-subject test-retest reproducibility of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), measured with edited magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), vary widely. Reasons for this variation remain unclear. Here we tested whether sequence complexity (two-experiment MEGA-PRESS versus four-experiment HERMES), editing pulse duration (14 versus 20 ms), scanner frequency drift (interleaved water referencing (IWR) turned ON versus OFF), and linear combination modeling variations (three different co-edited macromolecule models and 0.55 versus 0.4 ppm spline baseline knot spacing) affected the within-subject coefficient of variation of GABA + macromolecules (GABA+). We collected edited MRS data from the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex from 20 participants (30.8 ± 9.5 years; 10 males). Test and retest scans were separated by removing the participant from the scanner for 5-10 minutes. Each acquisition consisted of two MEGA-PRESS and two HERMES sequences with editing pulse durations of 14 and 20 ms (referred to here as: MEGA-14, MEGA-20, HERMES-14, and HERMES-20; all TE = 80 ms, 224 averages). Reproducibility did not consistently differ for MEGA-PRESS compared with HERMES or for 14 compared with 20 ms editing pulses. A composite model of the 0.9 and 3 ppm macromolecules (particularly for HERMES) and sparser (0.55 compared with 0.4 ppm) spline baseline knot spacing yielded generally better test-retest reproducibility for GABA+. Replicating our prior results, linear combination modeling in Osprey compared with simple peak fitting in Gannet resulted in substantially better test-retest reproducibility. These results highlight the importance of model selection for edited MRS studies of GABA+, particularly for clinical studies which focus on individual patient differences in GABA+ or changes following an intervention.
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.