Assessment of MRI-Based Automated Fetal Cerebral Cortical Folding Measures in Prediction of Gestational Age in the Third Trimester
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Traditional methods of dating a pregnancy based on history or sonographic assessment have a large variation in the third trimester. We aimed to assess the ability of various quantitative measures of brain cortical folding on MR imaging in determining fetal gestational age in the third trimester. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 8 different quantitative cortical folding measures to predict gestational age in 33 healthy fetuses by using T2-weighted fetal MR imaging. We compared the accuracy of the prediction of gestational age by these cortical folding measures with the accuracy of prediction by brain volume measurement and by a previously reported semiquantitative visual scale of brain maturity. Regression models were constructed, and measurement biases and variances were determined via a cross-validation procedure. RESULTS: The cortical folding measures are accurate in the estimation and prediction of gestational age (mean of the absolute error, 0.43 ± 0.45 weeks) and perform better than (P = .024) brain volume (mean of the absolute error, 0.72 ± 0.61 weeks) or sonography measures (SDs approximately 1.5 weeks, as reported in literature). Prediction accuracy is comparable with that of the semiquantitative visual assessment score (mean, 0.57 ± 0.41 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative cortical folding measures such as global average curvedness can be an accurate and reliable estimator of gestational age and brain maturity for healthy fetuses in the third trimester and have the potential to be an indicator of brain-growth delays for at-risk fetuses and preterm neonates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".