ArticleScientific reports2025
The consequences of using statistical tests on proxy measurements in place of gold standard measurements: an application to magnetic resonance spectroscopy.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of proxy measurements in biomedical science is ubiquitous, due to the infeasibility or unavailability of gold-standard (i.e., most precise, accurate, and/or validated) measurements. For example, in magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), short-echo time (TE) sequences are frequently employed to estimate difficult-to-measure metabolites such as GABA, despite J-difference editing being the recommended gold-standard due to improved metabolic specificity. This work investigates the critical relationship between the correlation of proxy and gold-standard measurements and the associated false positive (FPR) and false negative (FNR) rates of statistical tests performed on proxy measurements. Through statistical simulations, we demonstrate that even moderately high correlations (0.6-0.7), reported in the literature for short-TE vs. J-edited estimated GABA, can lead to drastically inflated FPRs and FNRs. We show that these rates are highly sensitive to the magnitude of differential bias in the proxy measurement (δ) and the underlying true effect size (Δ). For instance, a small, unmeasured bias in short-TE estimated GABA, potentially arising from macromolecule contamination, can substantially inflate FPRs. Conversely, imperfect correlation can substantially reduce statistical power, leading to high FNRs, which may explain some discrepancies within the literature. Although this work focuses specifically on the relationship between short-TE and MEGA-edited GABA, the arguments presented here apply more broadly to other difficult-to-measure metabolites in MRS (e.g., glutathione, 2-hydroxyglutarate), or generally to any circumstance where statistical tests are performed on the readily available proxy measurements in place of gold-standard measurements.
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.