CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16Advanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry StudiesAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

Weighted averaging in spectroscopic studies improves statistical power

Open access
Miller, Jack J., Cochlin, Lowri, Clarke, Kieran, Tyler, Damian J.·2017·Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
DOI 10.1002/mrm.26615PMC PMC5697704
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Purpose: In vivo MRS is often characterized by a spectral signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR) that varies highly between experiments. A common design for spectroscopic studies is to compare the ratio of two spectral peak amplitudes between groups, e.g. individual PCr/γ‐ATP ratios in 31 P‐MRS. The uncertainty on this ratio is often neglected. We wished to explore this assumption. Theory: The canonical theory for the propagation of uncertainty on the ratio of two spectral peaks and its incorporation in the Frequentist hypothesis testing framework by weighted averaging is presented. Methods: Two retrospective re‐analyses of studies comparing spectral peak ratios and one prospective simulation were performed using both the weighted and unweighted methods. Results: It was found that propagating uncertainty correctly improved statistical power in all cases considered, which could be used to reduce the number of subjects required to perform an MR study. Conclusion: The variability of in vivo spectroscopy data is often accounted for by requiring it to meet an SNR threshold. A theoretically sound propagation of the variable uncertainty caused by quantifying spectra of differing SNR is therefore likely to improve the power of in vivo spectroscopy studies. Magn Reson Med 78:2082–2094, 2017. © 2017 The Authors Magnetic Resonance in Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/mrm.26615

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. [1]Scheuermann‐Freestone M, Madsen PL, Manners D, Blamire AM, Buckingham RE, Styles P, Radda GK, Neubauer S, Clarke K. Abnormal cardiac and skeletal muscle energy metabolism in patients with type 2 diabetes. Circulation 2003; 107: 3040– 3046. 12810608
  2. [2]Daniels CJ, McLean MA, Schulte RF, et al. A comparison of quantitative methods for clinical imaging with hyperpolarized 13C‐pyruvate. NMR Biomed 2016; 29: 387– 399. 27414749 PMC4833181
  3. [3]Vanhamme L, van den Boogaart A, Van Huffel S. Improved method for accurate and efficient quantification of MRS data with use of prior knowledge. J Magn Reson 1997; 129: 35– 43. 9405214
  4. [4]van der Veen JWC, de Beer R, Luyten PR, van Ormondt D. Accurate quantification of in vivo 31P NMR signals using the variable projection method and prior knowledge. Magn Reson Med 1988; 6: 92– 98. 3352510
  5. [5]Kotyk J, Hoffman N, Hutton W, Bretthorst GL, Ackerman JJH. Comparison of Fourier and Bayesian analysis of NMR signals. II: examination of truncated free induction decay NMR data. J Magn Reson Series A 1995; 116: 1– 9.
  6. [6]Kotyk JJ, Hoffman NG, Hutton WC, Larry Bretthorst G, Ackerman JJH. Comparison of Fourier and Bayesian analysis of NMR signals. I. Well‐separated resonances (the single‐frequency case). J Magn Reson 1992; 98: 483– 500.
  7. [7]Cavassila S, Deval S, Huegen C, van Ormondt D, Graveron‐Demilly D. Cramer‐Rao bound expressions for parametric estimation of overlapping peaks: influence of prior knowledge. J Magn Reson 2000; 143: 311– 320. 10729257
  8. [8]Cavassila S, Deval S, Huegen C, van Ormondt D, Graveron‐Demilly D. Cram{é}r‐Rao bounds: an evaluation tool for quantitation. NMR Biomed 2001; 14: 278– 283. 11410946
  9. [9]Ochs MF, Stoyanova RS, Arias‐Mendoza F, Brown TR. A new method for spectral decomposition using a bilinear Bayesian approach. J Magn Reson 1999; 137: 161– 176. 10053145
  10. [10]Clarke WT, Robson MD, Rodgers CT. Bloch‐Siegert B1+‐mapping for human cardiac (31) P‐MRS at 7 Tesla. Magn Reson Med 2015; 76: 1047– 1058. 26509652 PMC5076794
  11. [12]Gudbjartsson H, Patz S. The Rician distribution of noisy MRI data. Magn Reson Med 1995; 34: 910– 914. 8598820 PMC2254141
  12. [13]De Graaf RA. In vivo NMR spectroscopy: principles and techniques. Hoboken: Wiley, 2007. ISBN 9780470026700.
  13. [14]Geary RC. The frequency distribution of the quotient of two normal variates. J R Stat Soc 1930; 93: 442– 446.
  14. [15]Hinkley B. On the ratio of two correlated normal random variables. Biometrika 1969; 56: 635– 639.
  15. [16]Franz VH. Ratios: a short guide to confidence limits and proper use. ArXiv e‐prints 2007;49:0710.2024.
  16. [17]Fieller EC. Some problems in interval estimation. J R Stat Soc 1954; 16: 175– 185.
  17. [18]Johnston IG, Rickett BC, Jones NS. Explicit tracking of uncertainty increases the power of quantitative rule‐of‐thumb reasoning in cell biology. Biophys J 2015; 107: 2612– 2617. PMC4255194 25468340
  18. [19]Bassingthwaighte JB. New and notable: uncertainty quantification. Biophys J 2015; 107: 2481– 2483. PMC4255171 25468323
  19. [20]Neubauer S, Horn M, Cramer M, et al. Myocardial phosphocreatine‐to‐ATP ratio is a predictor of mortality in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy. Circulation 1997; 96: 2190– 2196. 9337189
  20. [21]Rodgers CT, Robson MD. Receive array magnetic resonance spectroscopy: whitened singular value decomposition (WSVD) gives optimal Bayesian solution. Magn Reson Med 2010; 63: 881– 891. 20373389
  21. [23]Hedges LV. Distribution theory for Glass's estimator of effect size and related estimators. J Educ Behav Stat 1981; 6: 107– 128.
  22. [25]Dodd MS, Ball DR, Schroeder MA, et al. In vivo alterations in cardiac metabolism and function in the spontaneously hypertensive rat heart. Cardiovasc Res 2012; 95: 69– 76. 22593200 PMC4617603
  23. [26]Hill DK, Orton MR, Mariotti E, et al. Model free approach to kinetic analysis of real‐time hyperpolarized 13C magnetic resonance spectroscopy data. PLoS One 2013; 8: e71996. 24023724 PMC3762840
  24. [27]Levelt E, Rodgers CT, Clarke WT, et al. Cardiac energetics, oxygenation, and perfusion during increased workload in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Eur Heart J 2015; 23: ehv442. PMC5201143 26392437
  25. [28]Tyler DJ, Emmanuel Y, Cochlin LE, Hudsmith LE, Holloway CJ, Neubauer S, Clarke K, Robson MD. Reproducibility of 31P cardiac magnetic resonance spectroscopy at 3 T. NMR Biomed 2009; 22: 405– 413. 19023865
  26. [29]Dodd MS, Tyler DJ, Clarke K. Cardiac MRS Studies in Rodents and Other Animals. eMag Res 2015; 4 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470034590.emrstm1460/abstract;jsessionid=34ADEA480442AD815B88490AEE8D969D.f04t03. · DOI
  27. [30]Bottomley PA. The trouble with spectroscopy papers. J Magn Reson Imaging 1992; 2: 1– 8. 1623275
  28. [31]Taylor JS. The trouble with spectroscopy papers, 15 years later. NMR Biomed 2006; 19: 409– 410. 16763972
  29. [32]Hall EL, Stephenson MC, Price D, Morris PG. Methodology for improved detection of low concentration metabolites in MRS: optimised combination of signals from multi‐element coil arrays. Neuroimage 2014; 86: 35– 42. 23639258
  30. [33]Bandyoapdhyay PS, Nelson D, Greenwood M, Brittan G, Berwald J. The logic of Simpson's paradox. Synthese 2010; 181: 185– 208.
  31. [34]Kreis R. The trouble with quality filtering based on relative Cramér‐Rao lower bounds. Magn Reson Med 2016; 75: 15– 18. 25753153

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Miller, J. J., Cochlin, L., Clarke, K., & Tyler, D. J.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Miller, Jack J.
ORCID
Venue
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-01-26
Volume
78
Issue
6
Pages
2082-2094
ISSN
  • 0740-3194 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-2594
DOI
10.1002/mrm.26615
PMC
PMC5697704
OpenAlex
W2582523445
Cited by
16
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2
FWCI
1.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Oxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Scopus (Elsevier) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
British Heart Foundation (FS/10/002/28078, FS/11/50/29038, RG/07/004/22659, RG/11/9/28921)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Metabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
weighted averaging, error propagation, statistical power, signal-to-noise ratio, in vivo MR spectroscopy, hypothesis testing, sample size reduction
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Animals, Computer Simulation, Diabetes Mellitus, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Monte Carlo Method, Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy, Phosphorus, Prospective Studies, Rats, Inbred SHR, Retrospective Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Rats, Molecular Imaging, Signal-To-Noise Ratio

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review