ArticleNeuroradiology2023
Effect of magnet strength on fetal brain biometry - a single-center retrospective MRI-based cohort study.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automated craniofacial biometry with 3D T2w fetal MRI.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Automated Craniofacial Biometry with 3D T2w Fetal MRI.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAbnormal fetal brain measurements might affect clinical management and parental counseling. The effect of between-field-strength differences was not evaluated in quantitative fetal brain imaging until now. Our study aimed to compare fetal brain biometry measurements in 3.0 T with 1.5 T scanners.
methodsA retrospective cohort of 1150 low-risk fetuses scanned between 2012 and 2021, with apparently normal brain anatomy, were retrospectively evaluated for biometric measurements. The cohort included 1.5 T (442 fetuses) and 3.0 T scans (708 fetuses) of populations with comparable characteristics in the same tertiary medical center. Manually measured biometry included bi-parietal, fronto-occipital and trans-cerebellar diameters, length of the corpus-callosum, vermis height, and width. Measurements were then converted to centiles based on previously reported biometric reference charts. The 1.5 T centiles were compared with the 3.0 T centiles.
resultsNo significant differences between centiles of bi-parietal diameter, trans-cerebellar diameter, or length of the corpus callosum between 1.5 T and 3.0 T scanners were found. Small absolute differences were found in the vermis height, with higher centiles in the 3.0 T, compared to the 1.5 T scanner (54.6th-centile, vs. 39.0th-centile, p < 0.001); less significant differences were found in vermis width centiles (46.9th-centile vs. 37.5th-centile, p = 0.03). Fronto-occipital diameter was higher in 1.5 T than in the 3.0 T scanner (66.0th-centile vs. 61.8th-centile, p = 0.02).
conclusionsThe increasing use of 3.0 T MRI for fetal imaging poses a potential bias when using 1.5 T-based charts. We elucidate those biometric measurements are comparable, with relatively small between-field-strength differences, when using manual biometric measurements. Small inter-magnet differences can be related to higher spatial resolution with 3 T scanners and may be substantial when evaluating small brain structures, such as the vermis.
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.