↓ Skip to main content

How does motion affect GABA-measurements? Order statistic filtering compared to conventional analysis of MEGA-PRESS MRS

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How does motion affect GABA-measurements? Order statistic filtering compared to conventional analysis of MEGA-PRESS MRS
Published in
PLOS ONE, May 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0177795
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sofie Tapper, Anders Tisell, Peter Lundberg

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate two post-processing techniques applied to MRS MEGA-PRESS data influenced by motion-induced artifacts. In contrast to the conventional averaging technique, order statistic filtering (OSF) is a known method for artifact reduction. Therefore, this method may be suitable to incorporate in the GABA quantification. Twelve healthy volunteers were scanned three times using a 3 T MR system. One measurement protocol consisted of two MEGA-PRESS measurements, one reference measurement and one measurement including head motions. The resulting datasets were analyzed with the standard averaging technique and with the OSF-technique in two schemes; filtering phase cycles 'RAW PC' and filtering dynamics 'RAW Dyn'. The datasets containing artifacts resulted in an underestimation of the concentrations. There was a trend for the OSF-technique to compensate for this reduction when quantifying SNR-intense signals. However, there was no indication that OSF improved the estimated GABA concentrations. Moreover, when only considering the reference measurements, the OSF technique was equally as effective as averaging, which suggests that the techniques are interchangeable. OSF performed equally well as the conventional averaging technique for low-SNR signals. For high-SNR signals, OSF performed better and thus could be considered for routine usage.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
Unknown 27 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 11%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 7 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 8 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 11%
Psychology 3 11%
Engineering 2 7%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 8 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 May 2017.
All research outputs
#20,219,839
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#176,753
of 224,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,910
of 326,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,162
of 4,408 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,015 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,168 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,408 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.