ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2026
Head circumference assessment in pediatric MRI: a pilot study of manual measurement methods and automated segmentation-based alternatives.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Head circumference (HC) is an important clinical parameter in neuropediatrics, but it is often missing or outdated in referral information. This can lead to subjective, reader-dependent estimation during MRI interpretation. We first aimed to compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based methods for HC measurement against the tape measure (ground truth), and second to establish an automated alternative. Methods: In 23 children (mean age 4.5 years, range 0.5-17 years), HC was prospectively measured with a tape measure (ground truth) on the day of MRI. MRI-based HC measurements were derived from 3D T1-weighted MPRAGE and followed a two-step workflow: measurement plane selection and circumference measurement within that plane. Plane selection was performed using visual-based, rule-based, atlas-based [(infant) FreeSurfer], or neural network (nn)-based methods. Circumference measurement was performed using manual ellipsoid, manual contour, automated ellipsoid, or automated contour methods. The relative technical error of measurement (r-TEM; acceptable < 1.5%) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC; two-way mixed ANOVA model) were used to assess accuracy and consistency with the tape measure. Results: Visual-based with manual ellipsoid/contour and rule-based with manual ellipsoid/contour showed acceptable accuracy (r-TEM 0.73%-1.12%). Visual-based with automated ellipsoid and rule-based with automated ellipsoid also demonstrated acceptable accuracy (r-TEM 0.77% and 0.68%). Atlas-based with automated ellipsoid achieved the lowest r-TEM (0.55%), followed by nn-based with automated ellipsoid (r-TEM 0.75%). In contrast, automated contour approaches showed unacceptable accuracy (r-TEM 3.42%-4.21%). Seven nn-based measurements with automated ellipsoid/contour were spurious. ICCs were high across all methods (0.993-0.997); however, manual contour and automated ellipsoid were associated with overfitting issues. Conclusion: The developed, fully automated algorithm based on (infant) FreeSurfer provides precise and reliable head circumference measurements from pediatric MRI scans with acceptable overall accuracy and excellent consistency with manual measurements using a tape (gold standard). Our algorithm simplifies the head circumference measurement process and provides a reproducible, reader-independent value that enhances the interpretation of neuroradiological findings. Further studies should be conducted to validate with larger sample sizes and to develop deep neural network algorithms for segmentation.
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.