ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Benchmarking the Impact of Anatomical Segmentation on In Vivo Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Estimation of metabolite concentrations in brain magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) requires correction for differences in tissue water content, relaxation properties, and the proportions of gray matter (GM), white matter (WM), and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Accurate knowledge of the relative proportions of these tissue classes within the volume of interest is therefore essential for reliable quantification. Commonly used brain segmentation tools differ in their algorithms, priors, and implementation, potentially introducing variability in MRS-derived concentration estimates. This study investigates the impact of segmentation software on estimated absolute concentrations. Methods: Three segmentation software tools, ANTs, FSL, and SPM, were evaluated. Segmentations were applied to an in vivo test-retest MR dataset to assess (1) differences in estimated tissue fractions, and (2) how these differences propagate into tissue-corrected metabolite concentrations. As an additional validity check and biological benchmark of segmentation performance, age-related associations with GM and total creatine (tCr) were examined. Results: Significant differences ( Conclusion: The choice of segmentation methodology contributed substantially to variability in MRS "absolute" metabolite concentration estimates. These results underscore the need for transparent segmentation reporting to ensure reproducibility and cross-study comparability in MRS research. Quantifying the segmentation-driven variability allows researchers to contextualize cross-study differences, helping determine whether observed effects are methodological or biologically meaningful.
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.