ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2024
sLASER and PRESS perform similarly at revealing metabolite-age correlations at 3 T.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative analysis of sLASER and PRESS techniques for magnetic resonance spectroscopy of the normal human brain.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- TE optimization for J-difference editing of 2-hydroxyglutarate at 3T.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2025Article
- Brain metabolite concentrations in neonates with congenital heart disease before and after cardiac surgery.NeuroImage · 2025Article
- Multimodal investigation of neuropathology and neurometabolites in mild cognitive impairment and late-life depression withNeurobiology of aging · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the respective ability of PRESS and sLASER to reveal biological relationships, using age as a validation covariate at 3 T.
methodsMRS data were acquired from 102 healthy volunteers using PRESS and sLASER in centrum semiovale and posterior cingulate cortex (PCC). Acquisition parameters included TR/TE = 2000/30 ms, 96 transients, and 2048 datapoints sampled at 2 kHz. Spectra were analyzed using Osprey. SNR, FWHM linewidth of total creatine, and metabolite concentrations were extracted. A linear model was used to compare SNR and linewidth. Paired t-tests were used to assess differences in metabolite measurements between PRESS and sLASER. Correlations were used to evaluate the relationship between PRESS and sLASER metabolite estimates, as well as the strength of each metabolite-age relationship. Coefficients of variation were calculated to assess inter-subject variability in each metabolite measurement.
resultsSNR and linewidth were significantly higher (p < 0.01) for sLASER than PRESS in PCC. Paired t-tests showed significant differences between PRESS and sLASER in most metabolite measurements. PRESS-sLASER measurements were significantly correlated (p < 0.05) for most metabolites. Metabolite-age relationships were consistently identified using both methods. Similar coefficients of variation were observed for most metabolites.
conclusionThe study results suggest strong agreement between PRESS and sLASER in identifying relationships between brain metabolites and age in centrum semiovale and PCC data acquired at 3 T. sLASER is technically desirable due to the reduced chemical shift displacement artifact; however, PRESS performed similarly in homogeneous brain regions at clinical field strength.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.