ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2026
Automatic Respiratory and Bulk Patient Motion Corrected 3D Fetal MRI.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Automatic Respiratory and Bulk Patient Motion Corrected 3D Fetal MRI.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo develop a framework (ACROBATIC) for correcting motion in 3D radial fetal MRI.
methodsData were simulated (N = 200) and acquired in utero (N = 11, gestational age: 32 ± 2 weeks). Motion due to maternal respiration was estimated by extracting a self-gating signal and applying focused navigation. Bulk motion was estimated by splitting the acquisition into sequential bins, reconstructing 3D volumes and applying rigid image registration. These combined motion estimates were used to correct k-space. Self-gating signals were compared to ground truth in simulations and an external sensor in utero. The cumulative position error (CPE) measured the accuracy of motion estimations relative to ground truth in simulations and relative sharpness measured the corresponding impact on image quality for both simulations and in utero data. An expert reviewer performed a blinded ranking of in utero images including uncorrected and corrected data.
resultsSelf-gating signals correlated strongly with ground truth for simulations (R = 0.97 ± 0.01) and a external sensor for in utero data (R = 0.75 ± 0.23). CPE decreased significantly using ACROBATIC (uncorrected: 13.33[12.73-14.05], corrected: 2.20[1.80-2.61]). Relative image sharpness increased with ACROBATIC for both simulated (4.51[2.89-5.79]) and in utero data (1.12[0.77-1.44]) consistent with expert ranking where ACROBATIC images were given the best rank in the majority of cases.
conclusionACROBATIC enables motion correction in 3D radial fetal MRI. Correction of displacement due to maternal respiration and bulk motion results in improved image quality in simulations and in utero. Comparison to 2D frameworks are now warranted to establish the added diagnostic value of this approach.
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.