MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947783957 · doi:10.1186/s12968-019-0539-2

Fetal XCMR: a numerical phantom for fetal cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging

2019· article· en· W2947783957 on OpenAlexafffund
Christopher Roy, Davide Marini, W. Paul Segars, Mike Seed, Christopher K. Macgowan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTorsoImaging phantomMagnetic resonance imagingMedicineIn uteroFetusCoronal planeSagittal planeFetal heartFetal echocardiographyRadiologyAnatomyPrenatal diagnosisPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Validating new techniques for fetal cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is challenging due to random fetal movement that precludes repeat measurements. Consequently, fetal CMR development has been largely performed using physical phantoms or postnatal volunteers. In this work, we present an open-source simulation designed to aid in the development and validation of new approaches for fetal CMR. Our approach, fetal extended Cardiac-Torso cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (Fetal XCMR), builds on established methods for simulating CMR acquisitions but is tailored toward the dynamic physiology of the fetal heart and body. We present comparisons between the Fetal XCMR phantom and data acquired in utero, resulting in image quality, anatomy, tissue signals and contrast. METHODS: Existing extended Cardiac-Torso models are modified to create maternal and fetal anatomy, combined according to simulated motion, mapped to CMR contrast, and converted to CMR data. To provide a comparison between the proposed simulation and experimental fetal CMR images acquired in utero, images from a typical scan of a pregnant woman are included and simulated acquisitions were generated using matching CMR parameters, motion and noise levels. Three reconstruction (static, real-time, and CINE), and two motion estimation methods (translational motion, fetal heart rate) from data acquired in transverse, sagittal, coronal, and short-axis planes of the fetal heart were performed to compare to in utero acquisitions and demonstrate feasibility of the proposed simulation framework. RESULTS: Overall, CMR contrast, morphologies, and relative proportions of the maternal and fetal anatomy are well represented by the Fetal XCMR images when comparing the simulation to static images acquired in utero. Additionally, visualization of maternal respiratory and fetal cardiac motion is comparable between Fetal XCMR and in utero real-time images. Finally, high quality CINE image reconstructions provide excellent delineation of fetal cardiac anatomy and temporal dynamics for both data types. CONCLUSION: The fetal CMR phantom provides a new method for evaluating fetal CMR acquisition and reconstruction methods by simulating the underlying anatomy and physiology. As the field of fetal CMR continues to grow, new methods will become available and require careful validation. The fetal CMR phantom is therefore a powerful and convenient tool in the continued development of fetal cardiac imaging.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.006
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic ResonanceSame topicFetal and Pediatric Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207