ArticlePediatric radiology2025
Biometry and volumetry in multi-centric fetal brain magnetic resonance imaging: assessing the bias of super-resolution reconstruction.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 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.
- Advances in automated fetal brain MRI segmentation and biometry: Insights from the FeTA 2024 challenge.Medical image analysis · 2026Article
- Evaluating reliability of automated quantitative brain morphometry from fetal T2-weighted MRI.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Scanner-based real-time three-dimensional brain + body slice-to-volume reconstruction for T2-weighted 0.55-T low-field fetal magnetic resonance imaging.Pediatric radiology · 2025Article
- 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFetal brain MRI is increasingly used to complement ultrasound imaging. Images are processed using complex super-resolution reconstruction pipelines, which may bias biometric and volumetric measurements.
objectiveTo assess the consistency of 2-dimensional (D) biometric and 3-D volumetric measurements across three hospitals using three widely used super-resolution reconstruction pipelines. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective multi-centric study used T2-weighted fetal brain MRI scans acquired at three hospitals between 2009 and 2023. MRIs from each subject were reconstructed with each super-resolution reconstruction method, and biometric measurements were performed by four experts. Automated 3-D volumetry was performed using a state-of-the-art segmentation method. A qualitative evaluation assessed the clinicians' likelihood of using super-resolution reconstructed volumes in their practice.
resultsEighty-four healthy subjects were included. Biometric measurements revealed statistically significant changes that consistently remained below voxel width (0.8 mm; P<0.001). Automated 3-D volumetry revealed small systematic effects (<2.8%; P<0.001). The qualitative evaluation showed systematic differences between super-resolution reconstruction methods for the perception of white matter intensity (P=0.02) and sharpness of the image (P=0.01).
conclusionVariations in 2-D and 3-D quantitative measurements did not show any large systematic bias when using different super-resolution reconstruction methods for clinical radiological assessment across centers, scanners, and raters.
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.