ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2026
Accelerated water residual removal in MRS: Exploring deep learning versus fitting-based approaches.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Accelerated water residual removal in MRS: Exploring deep learning versus fitting-based approaches.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeRemoving water residual signals from MRS spectra is crucial for accurate metabolite quantification. However, currently available algorithms are computationally intensive and time-consuming, limiting their clinical applicability. This work aims to propose and validate two novel pipelines for fast water residual removal in MRS.
methodsTwo methods for water residual removal are proposed and evaluated: DeepWatR and WaterFit. DeepWatR uses a U-Net-like architecture with an attention mechanism for skip connections. WaterFit uses Torch auto-differentiation to estimate parameters for a 7-pool Lorentzian model. The accuracy and time-efficiency of these methods were assessed using simulated and in vivo 1H brain datasets and compared with the gold standard, Hankel Lanczos singular value decomposition method (HLSVD)Pro.
resultsIn the simulated dataset, the average percentage quantification error was
conclusionWaterFit showed a superior balance of accuracy and processing speed in removing water residual from MRS data compared to DeepWatR. The proposed WaterFit implementation significantly reduces preprocessing time while maintaining metabolite fitting accuracy comparable to gold standard methods. This advancement addresses the need for efficient processing methods that can facilitate analysis and enhance the clinical utility of MRS.
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.