Cargando…
Comparison of seven modelling algorithms for γ‐aminobutyric acid–edited proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy
Edited MRS sequences are widely used for studying γ‐aminobutyric acid (GABA) in the human brain. Several algorithms are available for modelling these data, deriving metabolite concentration estimates through peak fitting or a linear combination of basis spectra. The present study compares seven such...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9203918/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35078266 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nbm.4702 |
_version_ | 1784728801446461440 |
---|---|
author | Craven, Alexander R. Bhattacharyya, Pallab K. Clarke, William T. Dydak, Ulrike Edden, Richard A. E. Ersland, Lars Mandal, Pravat K. Mikkelsen, Mark Murdoch, James B. Near, Jamie Rideaux, Reuben Shukla, Deepika Wang, Min Wilson, Martin Zöllner, Helge J. Hugdahl, Kenneth Oeltzschner, Georg |
author_facet | Craven, Alexander R. Bhattacharyya, Pallab K. Clarke, William T. Dydak, Ulrike Edden, Richard A. E. Ersland, Lars Mandal, Pravat K. Mikkelsen, Mark Murdoch, James B. Near, Jamie Rideaux, Reuben Shukla, Deepika Wang, Min Wilson, Martin Zöllner, Helge J. Hugdahl, Kenneth Oeltzschner, Georg |
author_sort | Craven, Alexander R. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Edited MRS sequences are widely used for studying γ‐aminobutyric acid (GABA) in the human brain. Several algorithms are available for modelling these data, deriving metabolite concentration estimates through peak fitting or a linear combination of basis spectra. The present study compares seven such algorithms, using data obtained in a large multisite study. GABA‐edited (GABA+, TE = 68 ms MEGA‐PRESS) data from 222 subjects at 20 sites were processed via a standardised pipeline, before modelling with FSL‐MRS, Gannet, AMARES, QUEST, LCModel, Osprey and Tarquin, using standardised vendor‐specific basis sets (for GE, Philips and Siemens) where appropriate. After referencing metabolite estimates (to water or creatine), systematic differences in scale were observed between datasets acquired on different vendors' hardware, presenting across algorithms. Scale differences across algorithms were also observed. Using the correlation between metabolite estimates and voxel tissue fraction as a benchmark, most algorithms were found to be similarly effective in detecting differences in GABA+. An interclass correlation across all algorithms showed single‐rater consistency for GABA+ estimates of around 0.38, indicating moderate agreement. Upon inclusion of a basis set component explicitly modelling the macromolecule signal underlying the observed 3.0 ppm GABA peaks, single‐rater consistency improved to 0.44. Correlation between discrete pairs of algorithms varied, and was concerningly weak in some cases. Our findings highlight the need for consensus on appropriate modelling parameters across different algorithms, and for detailed reporting of the parameters adopted in individual studies to ensure reproducibility and meaningful comparison of outcomes between different studies. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9203918 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92039182022-07-01 Comparison of seven modelling algorithms for γ‐aminobutyric acid–edited proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy Craven, Alexander R. Bhattacharyya, Pallab K. Clarke, William T. Dydak, Ulrike Edden, Richard A. E. Ersland, Lars Mandal, Pravat K. Mikkelsen, Mark Murdoch, James B. Near, Jamie Rideaux, Reuben Shukla, Deepika Wang, Min Wilson, Martin Zöllner, Helge J. Hugdahl, Kenneth Oeltzschner, Georg NMR Biomed Research Articles Edited MRS sequences are widely used for studying γ‐aminobutyric acid (GABA) in the human brain. Several algorithms are available for modelling these data, deriving metabolite concentration estimates through peak fitting or a linear combination of basis spectra. The present study compares seven such algorithms, using data obtained in a large multisite study. GABA‐edited (GABA+, TE = 68 ms MEGA‐PRESS) data from 222 subjects at 20 sites were processed via a standardised pipeline, before modelling with FSL‐MRS, Gannet, AMARES, QUEST, LCModel, Osprey and Tarquin, using standardised vendor‐specific basis sets (for GE, Philips and Siemens) where appropriate. After referencing metabolite estimates (to water or creatine), systematic differences in scale were observed between datasets acquired on different vendors' hardware, presenting across algorithms. Scale differences across algorithms were also observed. Using the correlation between metabolite estimates and voxel tissue fraction as a benchmark, most algorithms were found to be similarly effective in detecting differences in GABA+. An interclass correlation across all algorithms showed single‐rater consistency for GABA+ estimates of around 0.38, indicating moderate agreement. Upon inclusion of a basis set component explicitly modelling the macromolecule signal underlying the observed 3.0 ppm GABA peaks, single‐rater consistency improved to 0.44. Correlation between discrete pairs of algorithms varied, and was concerningly weak in some cases. Our findings highlight the need for consensus on appropriate modelling parameters across different algorithms, and for detailed reporting of the parameters adopted in individual studies to ensure reproducibility and meaningful comparison of outcomes between different studies. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-02-23 2022-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9203918/ /pubmed/35078266 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nbm.4702 Text en © 2022 The Authors. NMR in Biomedicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Articles Craven, Alexander R. Bhattacharyya, Pallab K. Clarke, William T. Dydak, Ulrike Edden, Richard A. E. Ersland, Lars Mandal, Pravat K. Mikkelsen, Mark Murdoch, James B. Near, Jamie Rideaux, Reuben Shukla, Deepika Wang, Min Wilson, Martin Zöllner, Helge J. Hugdahl, Kenneth Oeltzschner, Georg Comparison of seven modelling algorithms for γ‐aminobutyric acid–edited proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy |
title | Comparison of seven modelling algorithms for γ‐aminobutyric acid–edited proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy |
title_full | Comparison of seven modelling algorithms for γ‐aminobutyric acid–edited proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy |
title_fullStr | Comparison of seven modelling algorithms for γ‐aminobutyric acid–edited proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of seven modelling algorithms for γ‐aminobutyric acid–edited proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy |
title_short | Comparison of seven modelling algorithms for γ‐aminobutyric acid–edited proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy |
title_sort | comparison of seven modelling algorithms for γ‐aminobutyric acid–edited proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy |
topic | Research Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9203918/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35078266 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nbm.4702 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cravenalexanderr comparisonofsevenmodellingalgorithmsforgaminobutyricacideditedprotonmagneticresonancespectroscopy AT bhattacharyyapallabk comparisonofsevenmodellingalgorithmsforgaminobutyricacideditedprotonmagneticresonancespectroscopy AT clarkewilliamt comparisonofsevenmodellingalgorithmsforgaminobutyricacideditedprotonmagneticresonancespectroscopy AT dydakulrike comparisonofsevenmodellingalgorithmsforgaminobutyricacideditedprotonmagneticresonancespectroscopy AT eddenrichardae comparisonofsevenmodellingalgorithmsforgaminobutyricacideditedprotonmagneticresonancespectroscopy AT erslandlars comparisonofsevenmodellingalgorithmsforgaminobutyricacideditedprotonmagneticresonancespectroscopy AT mandalpravatk comparisonofsevenmodellingalgorithmsforgaminobutyricacideditedprotonmagneticresonancespectroscopy AT mikkelsenmark comparisonofsevenmodellingalgorithmsforgaminobutyricacideditedprotonmagneticresonancespectroscopy AT murdochjamesb comparisonofsevenmodellingalgorithmsforgaminobutyricacideditedprotonmagneticresonancespectroscopy AT nearjamie comparisonofsevenmodellingalgorithmsforgaminobutyricacideditedprotonmagneticresonancespectroscopy AT rideauxreuben comparisonofsevenmodellingalgorithmsforgaminobutyricacideditedprotonmagneticresonancespectroscopy AT shukladeepika comparisonofsevenmodellingalgorithmsforgaminobutyricacideditedprotonmagneticresonancespectroscopy AT wangmin comparisonofsevenmodellingalgorithmsforgaminobutyricacideditedprotonmagneticresonancespectroscopy AT wilsonmartin comparisonofsevenmodellingalgorithmsforgaminobutyricacideditedprotonmagneticresonancespectroscopy AT zollnerhelgej comparisonofsevenmodellingalgorithmsforgaminobutyricacideditedprotonmagneticresonancespectroscopy AT hugdahlkenneth comparisonofsevenmodellingalgorithmsforgaminobutyricacideditedprotonmagneticresonancespectroscopy AT oeltzschnergeorg comparisonofsevenmodellingalgorithmsforgaminobutyricacideditedprotonmagneticresonancespectroscopy |