The Impact and Reliability of Tissue Segmentation on In Vivo Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Metabolite Quantification

PURPOSE: Quantification of metabolite concentrations using MRS requires tissue-dependent signal corrections. Accurate estimation of voxel tissue composition is therefore essential. Commonly used brain tissue segmentation tools differ in their algorithms and implementation, potentially introducing variability in MRS-derived concentration estimates. This study investigates the impact and reliability of tissue segmentation on metabolite quantification. METHODS: Three segmentation tools (ANTs, FSL, SPM) were evaluated using an in vivo test-retest MRI/MRS dataset. Voxelwise GM/WM/CSF fractions were applied to compute tissue-corrected total creatine (tCr) concentrations. Linear mixed-effects modeling, variance-component partitioning, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) quantified tool-, session-, and participant-related variance under permutation scenarios that isolated segmentation- and MRS-related effects. As a benchmark for segmentation performance, comparisons with manually segmented data were conducted across three brain regions. RESULTS: Segmentation tools produced systematically different tissue fractions that propagated into differences in tCr concentration estimates. Variance partitioning attributed 56.8%, 50.0%, and 51.3% of total tCr concentration variability to segmentation tool across the three permutations, with participant-specific factors accounting for 34.7%, 36.2%, and 28.5%, respectively. When segmentation variability was held constant, test-retest reliability was high (ICC > 0.8) but dropped to ∼0.5 when both segmentation and MRS variability varied. Agreement with manual segmentation was region- and tool-dependent, with the lowest agreement in the thalamus. CONCLUSION: Tissue segmentation contributes substantially to the variability in MRS-derived metabolite concentration estimates. These results underscore the need for transparent segmentation reporting and data sharing to ensure reproducibility and cross-study comparability in MRS research.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
Published
2026-04-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.70380
Primary Topic
Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Impact and Reliability of Tissue Segmentation on In Vivo Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Metabolite Quantification

Helge J. Zöllner, Aaron T. Gudmundson, Georg Oeltzschner, Karl Landheer et al.
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
article

The Impact and Reliability of Tissue Segmentation on In Vivo Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Metabolite Quantification

Helge J. Zöllner, Aaron T. Gudmundson, Georg Oeltzschner, Karl Landheer, Candace C. Fleischer, Kay C. Igwe, Mark E. Mikkelsen, Jaimie J. Lee, J. K. G. Kramer, Niklaus Zölch, Jessica Archibald, Jamie Near, Antonia Kaiser
article en

Abstract

PURPOSE: Quantification of metabolite concentrations using MRS requires tissue-dependent signal corrections. Accurate estimation of voxel tissue composition is therefore essential. Commonly used brain tissue segmentation tools differ in their algorithms and implementation, potentially introducing variability in MRS-derived concentration estimates. This study investigates the impact and reliability of tissue segmentation on metabolite quantification. METHODS: Three segmentation tools (ANTs, FSL, SPM) were evaluated using an in vivo test-retest MRI/MRS dataset. Voxelwise GM/WM/CSF fractions were applied to compute tissue-corrected total creatine (tCr) concentrations. Linear mixed-effects modeling, variance-component partitioning, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) quantified tool-, session-, and participant-related variance under permutation scenarios that isolated segmentation- and MRS-related effects. As a benchmark for segmentation performance, comparisons with manually segmented data were conducted across three brain regions. RESULTS: Segmentation tools produced systematically different tissue fractions that propagated into differences in tCr concentration estimates. Variance partitioning attributed 56.8%, 50.0%, and 51.3% of total tCr concentration variability to segmentation tool across the three permutations, with participant-specific factors accounting for 34.7%, 36.2%, and 28.5%, respectively. When segmentation variability was held constant, test-retest reliability was high (ICC > 0.8) but dropped to ∼0.5 when both segmentation and MRS variability varied. Agreement with manual segmentation was region- and tool-dependent, with the lowest agreement in the thalamus. CONCLUSION: Tissue segmentation contributes substantially to the variability in MRS-derived metabolite concentration estimates. These results underscore the need for transparent segmentation reporting and data sharing to ensure reproducibility and cross-study comparability in MRS research.

Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
Georgia Institute of Technology (US), Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (CA), University of British Columbia (CA), Johns Hopkins University (US), Emory University (US), Regeneron (United States) (US), University of Zurich (CH), Cornell University (US), Centre d'Imagerie BioMedicale (CH), Sunnybrook Hospital (CA), Weill Cornell Medicine (US), École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH), University of Baltimore (US), Columbia University (US)
National Institutes of Health
Openalex Percentile: Top 18%
Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.