ArticleNMR in biomedicine2024
Impact of acquisition and modeling parameters on the test-retest reproducibility of edited GABA.
Article in NMR in biomedicine, 2024. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Test-retest precision of brain metabolites in healthy participants usingQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Frontal GABA levels associate with musical rhythm production in healthy aging adults.Brain and cognition · 2024Article
- GABA-edited MEGA-PRESS at 3 T: Does a measured macromolecule background improve linear combination modeling?Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Literature values vary widely for within-subject test-retest reproducibility of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) measured with edited magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS). Reasons for this variation remain unclear. Here, we tested whether three acquisition parameters-(1) sequence complexity (two-experiment MEscher-GArwood Point RESolved Spectroscopy [MEGA-PRESS] vs. four-experiment Hadamard Encoding and Reconstruction of MEGA-Edited Spectroscopy [HERMES]); (2) editing pulse duration (14 vs. 20 ms); and (3) scanner frequency drift (interleaved water referencing [IWR] turned ON vs. OFF)-and two linear combination modeling variations-(1) three different coedited macromolecule models (called "1to1GABA", "1to1GABAsoft", and "3to2MM" in the Osprey software package); and (2) 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 (mean age: 30.8 ± 9.5 years; 10 males). Test and retest scans were separated by removing the participant from the scanner for 5-10 min. 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). We identified the best test-retest reproducibility following postprocessing with a composite model of the 0.9- and 3-ppm macromolecules ("3to2MM"); this model performed particularly well for the HERMES data. Furthermore, 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. However, reproducibility did not consistently differ for MEGA-PRESS compared with HERMES, for 14- compared with 20-ms editing pulses, or for IWR-ON versus IWR-OFF. These results highlight the importance of model selection for edited MRS studies of GABA+, particularly for clinical studies that focus on individual patient differences in GABA+ or changes following an intervention.
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.