ArticlePhysics in medicine and biology2007
Validation of the flash-evoked response from fetal MEG.
Article in Physics in medicine and biology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- The functional foetal brain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2026Pooled it
- Bridging the gap: Translating fetal, infant, and toddler neuroimaging insights into clinical practice.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2026Review
- The German Gestational Diabetes Study (PREG), a prospective multicentre cohort study: rationale, methodology and design.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Review
- The functional foetal brain: A systematic preview of methodological factors in reporting foetal visual and auditory capacity.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2015Review
- Article
- Indices and detectors for fetal MCG actography.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2011Article
- Verification of fetal brain responses by coregistration of fetal ultrasound and fetal magnetoencephalography data.NeuroImage · 2010Article
- Article
- Design of a light stimulator for fetal and neonatal magnetoencephalography.Physiological measurement · 2009Article
- Neonatal and fetal response decrement of evoked responses: a MEG study.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Flash-evoked responses can be recorded from the fetus in utero. However, a standard analysis approach based on orthogonal projection (OP) to attenuate maternal and fetal cardiac signals leads to a spatial redistribution of the signal. This effect prevents the correlation of source location with a known fetal head location in some cases and the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is sometimes limited such that the response latency is difficult to determine. We used a modified beamformer model search analysis to avoid the redistribution shortcoming and to improve the SNR. We included a statistical test for residual interference in the average and quantified significance of the evoked response with a bootstrap method. Selected source locations compared favorably to fetal head locations estimated from ultrasound exams. The evoked response time course was found to have a significant post-trigger peak with a latency between about 180 and 770 ms in more than 90% of the subject measurements. These results confirm that the combined application of a beamformer model search and bootstrap significance test provides a validation of the flash-evoked response observed in OP processed fetal MEG channels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.