Impact of acquisition and modeling parameters on test-retest reproducibility of edited GABA+
Kathleen E. HupfeldiD, Helge J. ZöllneriD, Steve C. N. HuiiD, Yulu SongiD, Saipavitra Murali‐ManohariD, Vivek Srikar YedavalliiD, Georg OeltzschneriD, James J. PrisciandaroiD, Richard A.E. EddeniD
Abstract
Literature values for within-subject test-retest reproducibility of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), measured with edited magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), vary widely. Reasons for this variation remain unclear. Here we tested whether sequence complexity (two-experiment MEGA-PRESS versus four-experiment HERMES), editing pulse duration (14 versus 20 ms), scanner frequency drift (interleaved water referencing (IWR) turned ON versus OFF), and linear combination modeling variations (three different co-edited macromolecule models and 0.55 versus 0.4 ppm spline baseline knot spacing) affected the within-subject coefficient of variation of GABA + macromolecules (GABA+). We collected edited MRS data from the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex from 20 participants (30.8 {+/-} 9.5 years; 10 males). Test and retest scans were separated by removing the participant from the scanner for 5-10 minutes. Each acquisition consisted of two MEGA-PRESS and two HERMES sequences with editing pulse durations of 14 and 20 ms (referred to here as: MEGA-14, MEGA-20, HERMES-14, and HERMES-20; all TE = 80 ms, 224 averages). Reproducibility did not consistently differ for MEGA-PRESS compared with HERMES or for 14 compared with 20 ms editing pulses. A composite model of the 0.9 and 3 ppm macromolecules (particularly for HERMES) and sparser (0.55 compared with 0.4 ppm) spline baseline knot spacing yielded generally better test-retest reproducibility for GABA+. Replicating our prior results, linear combination modeling in Osprey compared with simple peak fitting in Gannet resulted in substantially better test-retest reproducibility. These results highlight the importance of model selection for edited MRS studies of GABA+, particularly for clinical studies which focus on individual patient differences in GABA+ or changes following an intervention.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 7
- FWCI
- 1.16
- Field percentile
- top 24%
- Organism
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Comparison of linear combination modeling strategies for GABA-edited MRS at 3T
H. J. Zöllner, S. Tapper, … G. Oeltzschner·bioRxiv·May 26, 2021
- Comparison of seven modelling algorithms for GABA-edited 1H-MRS
Alexander R. Craven, Pallab K. Bhattacharyya, … Georg Oeltzschner·NMR in BiomedicinePeer-reviewed·Jan 25, 2022
- Linewidth-related bias in modelled concentration estimates from GABA-edited 1H-MRS
Alexander R. Craven, Tiffany Bell, … Georg Oeltzschner·bioRxiv·Feb 27, 2024
- Participant-specific macromolecule information improves quantification of GABA-edited spectra at 3T
Justin R. Singer, Kimberly L. Chan·bioRxiv·Oct 14, 2026
- Modelling inter-shot variability for robust temporal sub-sampling of dynamic, GABA-edited MR spectroscopy data
Alexander R. Craven, Lars Ersland, … Renate Grüner·bioRxiv·Dec 5, 2024
- Importance of linear combination modeling for quantification of Glutathione and GABA levels using Hadamard-edited MRS
Y. Song, H. J. Zollner, … R. A. E. Edden·bioRxiv·Dec 28, 2021