ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2025
Third trimester fetal 4D flow MRI with motion correction.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiac mechanotransduction from development to disease.APL bioengineering · 2026Review
- Automatic Respiratory and Bulk Patient Motion Corrected 3D Fetal MRI.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Motion Mitigation Techniques for Abdominal and Cardiac MR Imaging.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Review
- Third trimester fetal 4D flow MRI with motion correction.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo correct maternal breathing and fetal bulk motion during fetal 4D flow MRI.
methodsA Doppler-ultrasound fetal cardiac-gated free-running 4D flow acquisition was corrected post hoc for maternal respiratory and fetal bulk motion in separate automated steps, with optional manual intervention to assess and limit fetal motion artifacts. Compressed-sensing reconstruction with a data outlier rejection algorithm was adapted from previous work. Pre- and post-motion correction comparison included qualitative visibility of vasculature on phase-contrast MR angiograms (five-point Likert scale), conservation of mass of the aortic isthmus, ductus arteriosus, and descending aorta, and coefficient of variation of flow along the descending aorta.
resultsTwenty-nine third trimester acquisitions were performed for 15 healthy fetuses and two patients with postnatally confirmed aortic coarctation during a single examination for each participant. Only 15/27 (56%) of all volunteers and 1/2 (50%) of all patient precorrection acquisitions were suitable for flow analysis. Motion correction recovered eight "failed" acquisitions, including one patient, with 24/29 (83%) suitable for flow analysis. In the 15 viable uncorrected volunteer acquisitions, motion correction improved phase-contrast MR angiograms visibility significantly in the ductus arteriosus (from 4.0 to 4.3, p = 0.04) and aortic arch (3.7 to 4.0, p = 0.03). Motion correction improved conservation of mass to a median (interquartile range) percent difference of 5% (9%) from 14% (24%) with improvement shown in 14/15 acquisitions (p = 0.002), whereas coefficient of variation changes were not significantly different (uncorrected: 0.15 (0.09), corrected: 0.11 (0.09), p = 0.3).
conclusionsMotion correction compensated for maternal and fetal motion in fetal 4D flow MRI data, improving image quality and conservation of mass.
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.