Małgorzata Marjańska1, Dinesh K Deelchand1, Roland Kreis2. 1. Center for Magnetic Resonance Research, Department of Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 2. Magnetic Resonance Methodology group of the University Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology and the Department of Biomedical Research, University Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Fitting of MRS data plays an important role in the quantification of metabolite concentrations. Many different spectral fitting packages are used by the MRS community. A fitting challenge was set up to allow comparison of fitting methods on the basis of performance and robustness. METHODS: Synthetic data were generated for 28 datasets. Short-echo time PRESS spectra were simulated using ideal pulses for the common metabolites at mostly near-normal brain concentrations. Macromolecular contributions were also included. Modulations of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR); lineshape type and width; concentrations of γ-aminobutyric acid, glutathione, and macromolecules; and inclusion of artifacts and lipid signals to mimic tumor spectra were included as challenges to be coped with. RESULTS: Twenty-six submissions were evaluated. Visually, most fit packages performed well with mostly noise-like residuals. However, striking differences in fit performance were found with bias problems also evident for well-known packages. In addition, often error bounds were not appropriately estimated and deduced confidence limits misleading. Soft constraints as used in LCModel were found to substantially influence the fitting results and their dependence on SNR. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial differences were found for accuracy and precision of fit results obtained by the multiple fit packages.
PURPOSE: Fitting of MRS data plays an important role in the quantification of metabolite concentrations. Many different spectral fitting packages are used by the MRS community. A fitting challenge was set up to allow comparison of fitting methods on the basis of performance and robustness. METHODS: Synthetic data were generated for 28 datasets. Short-echo time PRESS spectra were simulated using ideal pulses for the common metabolites at mostly near-normal brain concentrations. Macromolecular contributions were also included. Modulations of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR); lineshape type and width; concentrations of γ-aminobutyric acid, glutathione, and macromolecules; and inclusion of artifacts and lipid signals to mimic tumor spectra were included as challenges to be coped with. RESULTS: Twenty-six submissions were evaluated. Visually, most fit packages performed well with mostly noise-like residuals. However, striking differences in fit performance were found with bias problems also evident for well-known packages. In addition, often error bounds were not appropriately estimated and deduced confidence limits misleading. Soft constraints as used in LCModel were found to substantially influence the fitting results and their dependence on SNR. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial differences were found for accuracy and precision of fit results obtained by the multiple fit packages.
Authors: A A Maudsley; A Darkazanli; J R Alger; L O Hall; N Schuff; C Studholme; Y Yu; A Ebel; A Frew; D Goldgof; Y Gu; R Pagare; F Rousseau; K Sivasankaran; B J Soher; P Weber; K Young; X Zhu Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Lena Maier-Hein; Matthias Eisenmann; Annika Reinke; Sinan Onogur; Marko Stankovic; Patrick Scholz; Tal Arbel; Hrvoje Bogunovic; Andrew P Bradley; Aaron Carass; Carolin Feldmann; Alejandro F Frangi; Peter M Full; Bram van Ginneken; Allan Hanbury; Katrin Honauer; Michal Kozubek; Bennett A Landman; Keno März; Oskar Maier; Klaus Maier-Hein; Bjoern H Menze; Henning Müller; Peter F Neher; Wiro Niessen; Nasir Rajpoot; Gregory C Sharp; Korsuk Sirinukunwattana; Stefanie Speidel; Christian Stock; Danail Stoyanov; Abdel Aziz Taha; Fons van der Sommen; Ching-Wei Wang; Marc-André Weber; Guoyan Zheng; Pierre Jannin; Annette Kopp-Schneider Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2018-12-06 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Daniel M Spielman; Meng Gu; Ralph E Hurd; R Kirk Riemer; Kenichi Okamura; Frank L Hanley Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2022-05-18 Impact factor: 4.478