Automatic Measurement of Fetal Brain Development from Magnetic Resonance Imaging: New Reference Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate fetal brain volume estimation is of paramount importance in evaluating fetal development. The aim of this study was to develop an automatic method for fetal brain segmentation from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data, and to create for the first time a normal volumetric growth chart based on a large cohort. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A semi-automatic segmentation method based on Seeded Region Growing algorithm was developed and applied to MRI data of 199 typically developed fetuses between 18 and 37 weeks' gestation. The accuracy of the algorithm was tested against a sub-cohort of ground truth manual segmentations. A quadratic regression analysis was used to create normal growth charts. The sensitivity of the method to identify developmental disorders was demonstrated on 9 fetuses with intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR). RESULTS: The developed method showed high correlation with manual segmentation (r2 = 0.9183, p < 0.001) as well as mean volume and volume overlap differences of 4.77 and 18.13%, respectively. New reference data on 199 normal fetuses were created, and all 9 IUGR fetuses were at or below the third percentile of the normal growth chart. DISCUSSION: The proposed method is fast, accurate, reproducible, user independent, applicable with retrospective data, and is suggested for use in routine clinical practice.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".