Comparison of modified two‐point dixon and chemical shift encoded MRI water‐fat separation methods for fetal fat quantification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fetal fat is indicative of the energy balance within the fetus, which may be disrupted in pregnancy complications such as fetal growth restriction, macrosomia, and gestational diabetes. Water-fat separated MRI is a technique sensitive to tissue lipid content, measured as fat fraction (FF), and can be used to accurately measure fat volumes. Modified two-point Dixon and chemical shift encoded MRI (CSE-MRI) are water-fat separated MRI techniques that could be applied to imaging of fetal fat. Modified two-point Dixon has biases present that are corrected in CSE-MRI which may contribute to differences in the fat measurements. PURPOSE: To compare the measurement of fetal fat volume and FF by modified two-point Dixon and CSE-MRI. STUDY TYPE: Cross-sectional study for comparison of two MRI pulse sequences. POPULATION: Twenty-one pregnant women with singleton pregnancies. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5T, modified two-point Dixon and CSE-MRI. ASSESSMENT: Manual segmentation of total fetal fat volume and mean FF from modified 2-point Dixon and CSE-MRI FF images. STATISTICAL TESTS: Reliability was assessed by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Agreement was assessed using a one-sample t-test on the fat measurements difference values (modified two-point Dixon - CSE-MRI). The difference scores were tested against a value of 0, which would indicate that the measurements were identical. RESULTS: The fat volume and FF measured by modified two-point Dixon and CSE-MRI had excellent reliability, demonstrated by ICCs of 0.93 (P < 0.001) and 0.90 (P < 0.001), respectively. They were not in agreement, with CSE-MRI giving mean fat volumes 180 mL greater and mean FF 3.0% smaller than modified two-point Dixon. DATA CONCLUSION: The reliability between modified two-point Dixon and CSE-MRI indicates that either technique can be used to compare fetal fat measurements in different participants, but they are not in agreement possibly due to uncorrected biases in modified two-point Dixon. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".