ArticleBMC medical imaging2026
Comparative evaluation of a deep learning method QNet and LCModel for MRS quantification on the cloud computing platform CloudBrain-MRS.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesReliable magnetic resonance (MR) spectroscopy (MRS) quantification is key to accurate clinical diagnosis. This study aimed to statistically compare the metabolite quantification of human brain MRS between the deep learning method QNet and the classical method LCModel via an easy-to-use intelligent cloud computing platform CloudBrain-MRS.
methodsIn this retrospective study, 15 healthy volunteers (12 females and 3 males, age range: 21–35 years, mean age ± standard deviation: 27.4 ± 3.9 years) were recruited. In September and October 2021, two 3 T MRI scanners each collected 61 in vivo 1H MR spectra from the brain region of pregenual anterior cingulate cortex of the healthy participants. The analyses of Bland-Altman, Pearson correlation and reasonability were performed to assess the degree of agreement, linear correlation, and reasonability, respectively, between the two quantification methods.
resultsThe analyses of Bland-Altman, Pearson correlation and reasonability showed very high to moderate consistency (relative half interval of limits of agreement = 3.04%, 9.31%, and 18.50%, respectively) and very strong to moderate correlation (Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.78, 0.93, and 0.47, respectively) between the two methods for quantifying total N-acetylaspartate (tNAA), total choline (tCho), and inositol (Ins). In addition, the quantification results of QNet were generally closer to the previously reported average values than those of LCModel.
conclusionsThere were very high to moderate degrees of consistency between the quantification results of QNet and LCModel for tNAA, tCho, and Ins, and QNet generally had more reasonable quantification than LCModel.
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.