Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41238791›Full record

ArticlePediatric radiology2026

Towards automated fetal brain biometry reporting for 3-dimensional T2-weighted 0.55-3T magnetic resonance imaging at 20-40 weeks gestational age range.

Aysha Luis, Alena Uus, Jacqueline Matthew, Sophie Arulkumaran, Alexia Egloff Collado, Vanessa Kyriakopoulou, Sara Neves Silva, Jordina Aviles Verdera, Megan Hall, Simi Bansal and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatric radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Aysha Luis *Department of Early Life Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, SE1 7EH, UK. aysha.luis@kcl.ac.uk.
Alena Uus *Department of Early Life Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, SE1 7EH, UK. alena.uus@kcl.ac.uk.
Jacqueline MatthewDepartment of Early Life Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Sophie ArulkumaranDepartment of Early Life Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Alexia Egloff ColladoDepartment of Early Life Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Vanessa KyriakopoulouDepartment of Early Life Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Sara Neves SilvaDepartment of Early Life Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Jordina Aviles VerderaDepartment of Early Life Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Megan HallDepartment of Early Life Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Simi BansalDepartment of Early Life Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Sarah McElroySiemens (United Kingdom), Camberley, United Kingdom.
Kathleen ColfordDepartment of Early Life Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Jo HajnalDepartment of Early Life Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Jana HutterDepartment of Early Life Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Lisa StoryDepartment of Early Life Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Mary RutherfordDepartment of Early Life Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital, London, SE1 7EH, UK.

Funding

DFG Heisenberg 502024488High Tech Agenda Bavaria MR/W019469/1MRC MR/X010007/1National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR3016640NIHR NIHR300555UKRI MR/T018119/1Wellcome/EPSRC Centre WT203148/Z/16/ZWellcome TrustWellcome Trust 201374/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe detailed assessment of fetal brain maturation and development involves morphological evaluation, gyration analysis, and reliable biometric measurements. Manual measurements on conventional 2-D magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are affected by fetal motion, and there is no clear consensus regarding definitions for brain biometric parameters and anatomical landmark placements, making consistent reference plane and slice selection challenging. Automated biometry with 3-D slice-to-volume reconstruction (SVR) has the potential to improve the reliability of derived measurements, allowing precise quantification of fetal brain development. Previous published works have primarily focused on the technical feasibility of automated fetal brain biometry methods for T2-weighted (T2W) MRI. However, none have proposed solutions for automating the reporting of biometry results, which could enhance clinical utility and support real-time integration into routine clinical workflows. Furthermore, there is no consensus on a universal fetal biometry protocol for 3-D fetal MRI.

objectiveTo implement and validate a fully automated biometry reporting pipeline for 3-D T2W fetal brain MRI, based on deep learning biometry measurements and computation of z-scores and centiles, by comparison to normative growth charts. MATERIALS AND

methodsAutomated extraction of 13 routinely reported linear fetal biometry measurements using deep learning localization of anatomical landmarks in 3-D reconstructed T2W brain images based on 3-D UNet and presentation of the results in an .html report with centile calculation. The automated biometry method was quantitatively evaluated on 90 retrospective cases against expert manual measurements. Additionally, the fully automated, end-to-end biometry reporting pipeline was prospectively evaluated on 111 cases across a wide range of gestational ages, field strengths, and scanning parameters. We also generated normal centile ranges for 19-40 weeks GA range from 406 normal control datasets.

resultsThe retrospective quantitative evaluation demonstrated good agreement with manual measurements, with the maximum absolute difference between automated vs. manual measurement within a 1-3-mm range. In the prospective evaluation, more than 98% of landmark placements were graded as acceptable for interpretation and measurements. The processing time of the pipeline was less than 5 min per case, with measurements and centiles available at the time of reporting. Inspection of the automated landmark placement and computed biometrics took 1-3 min per case. The generated normative growth charts demonstrate strong correlation with the trends in the previously reported works.

conclusionOur approach is the first to develop a fully automated biometry reporting pipeline for 3-D T2-weighted fetal MRI which integrates deep learning-based measurements, centile and z-score calculation vs. normative growth charts and report generation.

Indexed as

BrainImaging, Three-DimensionalMagnetic Resonance ImagingPrenatal DiagnosisBiometryDeep LearningFemaleGestational AgeHumansPregnancyReproducibility of ResultsBiometryDeep learningFetusMagnetic resonance imagingNeuroimaging

Identifiers

PMID41238791
PMCPMC12881129

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.