MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409485713 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-96538-x

Evaluating the effects of volume censoring on fetal functional connectivity

2025· article· en· W4409485713 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jung‐Hoon Kim, Josepheen De Asis‐Cruz, Kevin M. Cook, Catherine Limperopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGovernment of CanadaU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsCensoring (clinical trials)Functional magnetic resonance imagingMagnetic resonance imagingFetusNeuroimagingRegressionFetal headNeuroscienceMedicineArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePsychologyRadiologyBiologyPregnancyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Advances in neuroimaging have enabled non-invasive investigation of fetal brain development in vivo. Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) has provided critical insights into emerging brain networks in fetuses. However, acquiring high-quality fetal rs-fMRI remains challenging due to the unpredictable and unconstrained motion of the fetal head. Nuisance regression, where the brain signal is regressed onto translational and rotational head motion parameters, has been widely and effectively used in adults to reduce the influence of motion. However, subsequent studies have revealed that associations between head motion and large-scale brain functional connectivity (FC) persisted even after regression. In ex utero groups (e.g., newborns, toddlers, and adults), censoring high-motion volumes has shown effectiveness in mitigating such lingering impacts of head motion. While censoring high motion volumes has been utilized in fetal rs-fMRI, a systematic assessment of the effectiveness of regression and censoring high motion volumes in fetuses has not been done. Establishing the effectiveness of censoring in fetal rs-fMRI is critical to avoid possible bias in findings resulting from head motion. To address this knowledge gap, we investigated the associations between head motion and fetal rs-fMRI at different analysis scales: blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) time series and whole-brain FC. We used a dataset of 120 fetal scans collected from 104 healthy fetuses. We found that nuisance regression reduced the association between head motion, defined by frame-by-frame displacement (FD) of head position, and BOLD time series data in all regions of interest (ROI) encompassing the whole brain. Nuisance regression, however, was not effective in reducing the impact of head motion on FC. Fetuses’ FC profiles significantly predicted average FD (r = 0.09 ± 0.08; p < 10–3) after regression, suggesting a lingering effect of motion on whole-brain patterns. To dissociate head motion and the FC, we used volume censoring and evaluated its efficacy in correcting motion at different thresholds. We demonstrated that censored data improved resting state data’s ability to predict neurobiological features, such as gestational age and sex (accuracy = 55.2 ± 2.9% with 1.5 mm vs. 44.6 ± 3.6% with no censoring). Collectively, our results highlight the importance of data censoring in reducing the lingering impact of head motion on fetal rs-fMRI, thus attenuating motion-related bias. Like older age groups such as neonates and adults, combining regression and censoring techniques is recommended for large-scale FC analysis, e.g., network-based analysis, for fetuses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicFetal and Pediatric Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207