ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2024
Model-based frequency-and-phase correction of
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A data-driven algorithm to determineMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Disentangling metabolic and neurovascular timescales supporting cognitive processes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeRetrospective frequency-and-phase correction (FPC) methods attempt to remove frequency-and-phase variations between transients to improve the quality of the averaged MR spectrum. However, traditional FPC methods like spectral registration struggle at low SNR. Here, we propose a method that directly integrates FPC into a 2D linear-combination model (2D-LCM) of individual transients ("model-based FPC"). We investigated how model-based FPC performs compared to the traditional approach, i.e., spectral registration followed by 1D-LCM in estimating frequency-and-phase drifts and, consequentially, metabolite level estimates.
methodsWe created synthetic in-vivo-like 64-transient short-TE sLASER datasets with 100 noise realizations at 5 SNR levels and added randomly sampled frequency and phase variations. We then used this synthetic dataset to compare the performance of 2D-LCM with the traditional approach (spectral registration, averaging, then 1D-LCM). Outcome measures were the frequency/phase/amplitude errors, the SD of those ground-truth errors, and amplitude Cramér Rao lower bounds (CRLBs). We further tested the proposed method on publicly available in-vivo short-TE PRESS data.
results2D-LCM estimates (and accounts for) frequency-and-phase variations directly from uncorrected data with equivalent or better fidelity than the conventional approach. Furthermore, 2D-LCM metabolite amplitude estimates were at least as accurate, precise, and certain as the conventionally derived estimates. 2D-LCM estimation of FPC and amplitudes performed substantially better at low-to-very-low SNR.
conclusionModel-based FPC with 2D linear-combination modeling is feasible and has great potential to improve metabolite level estimation for conventional and dynamic MRS data, especially for low-SNR conditions, for example, long TEs or strong diffusion weighting.
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.