Pith. sign in

REVIEW

An artificially intelligent magnetic resonance spectroscopy quantification method: Comparison between QNet and LCModel on the cloud computing platform CloudBrain-MRS

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2503.04469 v1 pith:HU6ANLLO submitted 2025-03-06 physics.med-ph cs.LG

classification physics.med-phcs.LG
keywords quantificationcorrelationlcmodelqnetmagneticmethodmethodspearson
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Objctives: This work aimed to statistically compare the metabolite quantification of human brain magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) between the deep learning method QNet and the classical method LCModel through an easy-to-use intelligent cloud computing platform CloudBrain-MRS. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, two 3 T MRI scanners Philips Ingenia and Achieva collected 61 and 46 in vivo 1H magnetic resonance (MR) spectra of healthy participants, respectively, from the brain region of pregenual anterior cingulate cortex from September to October 2021. The analyses of Bland-Altman, Pearson correlation and reasonability were performed to assess the degree of agreement, linear correlation and reasonability between the two quantification methods. Results: Fifteen healthy volunteers (12 females and 3 males, age range: 21-35 years, mean age/standard deviation = 27.4/3.9 years) were recruited. The analyses of Bland-Altman, Pearson correlation and reasonability showed high to good consistency and very strong to moderate correlation between the two methods for quantification of total N-acetylaspartate (tNAA), total choline (tCho), and inositol (Ins) (relative half interval of limits of agreement = 3.04%, 9.3%, and 18.5%, respectively; Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.775, 0.927, and 0.469, respectively). In addition, quantification results of QNet are more likely to be closer to the previous reported average values than those of LCModel. Conclusion: There were high or good degrees of consistency between the quantification results of QNet and LCModel for tNAA, tCho, and Ins, and QNet generally has more reasonable quantification than LCModel.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Pith tools