ArticleJournal of anatomy2018
Mathematical models of human cerebellar development in the fetal period.
Article in Journal of anatomy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The early alteration of brainstem and cerebellum, and their relationship with cerebral cortex: anQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Preservation fluids of heritage anatomical specimens - a challenge for modern science. Studies of the origin, composition and microbiological contamination of old museum collections.Journal of anatomy · 2023Article
- The morphometrical and topographical evaluation of the superior gluteal nerve in the prenatal period.PloS one · 2022Article
- Graded Cerebellar Lobular Volume Deficits in Adolescents and Young Adults with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD).Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2020Article
- Three-dimensional sonographic minute structure analysis of fetal cerebellar vermis development and malformations: utilizing volume contrast imaging.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The evaluation of cerebellar growth in the fetal period forms a part of a widely used examination to identify any features of abnormalities in early stages of human development. It is well known that the development of anatomical structures, including the cerebellum, does not always follow a linear model of growth. The aim of the study was to analyse a variety of mathematical models of human cerebellar development in fetal life to determine their adequacy. The study comprised 101 fetuses (48 males and 53 females) between the 15th and 28th weeks of fetal life. The cerebellum was exposed and measurements of the vermis and hemispheres were performed, together with statistical analyses. The mathematical model parameters of fetal growth were assessed for crown-rump length (CRL) increases, transverse cerebellar diameter and ventrodorsal dimensions of the cerebellar vermis in the transverse plane, and rostrocaudal dimensions of the cerebellar vermis and hemispheres in the frontal plane. A variety of mathematical models were applied, including linear and non-linear functions. Taking into consideration the variance between models and measurements, as well as correlation parameters, the exponential and Gompertz models proved to be the most suitable for modelling cerebellar growth in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. However, the linear model gave a satisfactory approximation of cerebellar growth, especially in older fetuses. The proposed models of fetal cerebellar growth constructed on the basis of anatomical examination and objective mathematical calculations could be useful in the estimation of fetal development.
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.