ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Site effects in multisite fetal brain MRI: morphological insights into early brain development.
Article in European radiology, 2025. 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.
- Harmonization in magnetic resonance imaging: A survey of acquisition, image-level, and feature-level methods.Medical image analysis · 2026Review
- Data quality biases normative models derived from fetal brain MRI.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate multisite effects on fetal brain MRI. Specifically, to identify crucial acquisition factors affecting fetal brain structural measurements and developmental patterns, while assessing the effectiveness of existing harmonization methods in mitigating site effects. MATERIALS AND
methodsBetween May 2017 and March 2022, T2-weighted fast spin-echo sequences in-utero MRI were performed on healthy fetuses from retrospectively recruited pregnant volunteers on four different scanners at four sites. A generalized additive model (GAM) was used to quantitatively assess site effects, including field strength (FS), manufacturer (M), in-plane resolution (R), and slice thickness (ST), on subcortical volume and cortical morphological measurements, including cortical thickness, curvature, and sulcal depth. Growth models were selected to elucidate the developmental trajectories of these morphological measurements. Welch's test was performed to evaluate the influence of site effects on developmental trajectories. The comBat-GAM harmonization method was applied to mitigate site-related biases.
resultsThe final analytic sample consisted of 340 MRI scans from 218 fetuses (mean GA, 30.1 weeks ± 4.4 [range, 21.7-40 weeks]). GAM results showed that lower FS and lower spatial resolution led to overestimations in selected brain regions of subcortical volumes and cortical morphological measurements. Only the peak cortical thickness in developmental trajectories was significantly influenced by the effects of FS and R. Notably, ComBat-GAM harmonization effectively removed site effects while preserving developmental patterns.
conclusionOur findings pinpointed the key acquisition factors in in-utero fetal brain MRI and underscored the necessity of data harmonization when pooling multisite data for fetal brain morphology investigations. KEY POINTS: Question How do specific site MRI acquisition factors affect fetal brain imaging? Finding Lower FS and spatial resolution overestimated subcortical volumes and cortical measurements. Cortical thickness in developmental trajectories was influenced by FS and in-plane resolution. Clinical relevance This study provides important guidelines for the fetal MRI community when scanning fetal brains and underscores the necessity of data harmonization of cross-center fetal studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39299951What 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.