ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2025
Examination of methods to separate overlapping metabolites at 7T.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computational signatures of uncertainty are reflected in motor cortex excitatory neurochemistry.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Reliability and Reproducibility of Metabolite Quantification UsingNMR in biomedicine · 2025Article
- Examination of methods to separate overlapping metabolites at 7T.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeNeurochemicals of interest quantified by MRS are often composites of overlapping signals. At higher field strengths (i.e., 7T), there is better separation of these signals. As the availability of higher field strengths is increasing, it is important to re-evaluate the separability of overlapping metabolite signals.
methodsThis study compares the ability of stimulated echo acquisition mode (STEAM-8; TE = 8 ms), short-TE semi-LASER (sLASER-34; TE = 34 ms), and long-TE semi-LASER (sLASER-105; TE = 105 ms) acquisitions to separate the commonly acquired neurochemicals at 7T (Glx, consisting of glutamate and glutamine; total N-acetyl aspartate, consisting of N-acetyl aspartate and N-acetylaspartylglutamate; total creatine, consisting of creatine and phosphocreatine; and total choline, consisting of choline, phosphocholine, and glycerophosphocholine).
resultssLASER-34 produced the lowest fit errors for most neurochemicals; however, STEAM-8 had better within-subject reproducibility and required fewer subjects to detect a change between groups. However, this is dependent on the neurochemical of interest.
conclusionWe recommend short-TE STEAM for separation of most standard neurochemicals at 7T over short-TE or long-TE sLASER.
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.