MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308803723 · doi:10.3389/fnins.2022.1027084

Semi-automatic segmentation of the fetal brain from magnetic resonance imaging

2022· article· en· W4308803723 on OpenAlexafffund
Jianan Wang, Emily S. Nichols, Megan E. Mueller, Barbra de Vrijer, Roy Eagleson, Charles A. McKenzie, Sandrine de Ribaupierre, Emma G. Duerden

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroscience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada First Research Excellence FundMolly Towell Perinatal Research Foundation
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingSegmentationNeuroimagingFunctional magnetic resonance imagingNuclear magnetic resonanceComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedicineNeurosciencePhysicsRadiologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Volumetric measurements of fetal brain maturation in the third trimester of pregnancy are key predictors of developmental outcomes. Improved understanding of fetal brain development trajectories may aid in identifying and clinically managing at-risk fetuses. Currently, fetal brain structures in magnetic resonance images (MRI) are often manually segmented, which requires both time and expertise. To facilitate the targeting and measurement of brain structures in the fetus, we compared the results of five segmentation methods applied to fetal brain MRI data to gold-standard manual tracings. Methods Adult women with singleton pregnancies ( n = 21), of whom five were scanned twice, approximately 3 weeks apart, were recruited [26 total datasets, median gestational age (GA) = 34.8, IQR = 30.9–36.6]. T2-weighted single-shot fast spin echo images of the fetal brain were acquired on 1.5T and 3T MRI scanners. Images were first combined into a single 3D anatomical volume. Next, a trained tracer manually segmented the thalamus, cerebellum, and total cerebral volumes. The manual segmentations were compared with five automatic methods of segmentation available within Advanced Normalization Tools (ANTs) and FMRIB’s Linear Image Registration Tool (FLIRT) toolboxes. The manual and automatic labels were compared using Dice similarity coefficients (DSCs). The DSC values were compared using Friedman’s test for repeated measures. Results Comparing cerebellum and thalamus masks against the manually segmented masks, the median DSC values for ANTs and FLIRT were 0.72 [interquartile range (IQR) = 0.6–0.8] and 0.54 (IQR = 0.4–0.6), respectively. A Friedman’s test indicated that the ANTs registration methods, primarily nonlinear methods, performed better than FLIRT ( p < 0.001). Conclusion Deformable registration methods provided the most accurate results relative to manual segmentation. Overall, this semi-automatic subcortical segmentation method provides reliable performance to segment subcortical volumes in fetal MR images. This method reduces the costs of manual segmentation, facilitating the measurement of typical and atypical fetal brain development.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.216 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroscienceSame topicFetal and Pediatric Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207