ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2021
Image Quality Assessment of Fetal Brain MRI Using Multi-Instance Deep Learning Methods.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Roles and applications of artificial intelligence in fetal and placental MRI: a literature review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Artificial intelligence in medicine: Current applications in cardiology, oncology, and radiology.World journal of methodology · 2025Review
- Image Quality Assessment Using Convolutional Neural Network in Clinical Skin Images.JID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health · 2024Article
- Fetal neuroimaging applications for diagnosis and counseling of brain anomalies: Current practice and future diagnostic strategies.Seminars in fetal & neonatal medicine · 2024Review
- Multilabel SegSRGAN-A framework for parcellation and morphometry of preterm brain in MRI.PloS one · 2024Article
- Quantifying MR head motion in the Rhineland Study - A robust method for population cohorts.NeuroImage · 2023Article
- Artificial intelligence applied to fetal MRI: A scoping review of current research.The British journal of radiology · 2023Article
- [Applications of Artificial Intelligence in MR Image Acquisition and Reconstruction].Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2022Review
- An Internet-of-Disease System for COVID-19 Testing Using Saliva by an AI-Controlled Microfluidic ELISA Device.Advanced materials technologies · 2022Article
- A Brief Survey on No-Reference Image Quality Assessment Methods for Magnetic Resonance Images.Journal of imaging · 2022Article
- Automatic brain segmentation in preterm infants with post-hemorrhagic hydrocephalus using 3D Bayesian U-Net.Human brain mapping · 2022Article
- Artifact- and content-specific quality assessment for MRI with image rulers.Medical image analysis · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDue to random motion of fetuses and maternal respirations, image quality of fetal brain MRIs varies considerably. To address this issue, visual inspection of the images is performed during acquisition phase and after 3D-reconstruction, and the images are re-acquired if they are deemed to be of insufficient quality. However, this process is time-consuming and subjective. Multi-instance (MI) deep learning methods (DLMs) may perform this task automatically. PURPOSE: To propose an MI count-based DLM (MI-CB-DLM), an MI vote-based DLM (MI-VB-DLM), and an MI feature-embedding DLM (MI-FE-DLM) for automatic assessment of 3D fetal-brain MR image quality. To quantify influence of fetal gestational age (GA) on DLM performance. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. SUBJECTS: Two hundred and seventy-one MR exams from 211 fetuses (mean GA ± SD = 30.9 ± 5.5 weeks). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: T ASSESSMENT: The T STATISTICAL TESTS: DLM performance was evaluated using precision, recall, F-score, accuracy, and AUC values.
resultsPrecision, recall, F-score, accuracy, and AUC averaged over the three cross validations were 0.85 ± 0.01, 0.85 ± 0.01, 0.85 ± 0.01, 0.85 ± 0.01, 0.93 ± 0.01, for MI-CB-DLM (without GA); 0.75 ± 0.03, 0.75 ± 0.03, 0.75 ± 0.03, 0.75 ± 0.03, 0.81 ± 0.03, for MI-VB-DLM (without GA); 0.81 ± 0.01, 0.81 ± 0.01, 0.81 ± 0.01, 0.81 ± 0.01, 0.89 ± 0.01, for MI-FE-DLM (without GA); and 0.86 ± 0.01, 0.86 ± 0.01, 0.86 ± 0.01, 0.86 ± 0.01, 0.93 ± 0.01, for MI-CB-DLM with GA. DATA
conclusionMI-CB-DLM performed better than other DLMs. Including GA as an input of MI-CB-DLM improved its performance. MI-CB-DLM may potentially be used to objectively and rapidly assess fetal MR image quality. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 4 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.
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.