Neonatal neuroimaging: from research to bedside practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neonatal neuroimaging is essential in research and clinical practice, offering important insights into brain development and neurologic injury mechanisms. Visualizing the brain enables researchers and clinicians to improve neonatal care and parental counselling through better diagnosis and prognostication of disease. Common neuroimaging modalities used in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) are cranial ultrasonography (cUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Between these modalities, conventional MRI provides the optimal image resolution and detail about the developing brain, while advanced MRI techniques allow for the evaluation of tissue microstructure and functional networks. Over the last two decades, medical imaging techniques using brain MRI have rapidly progressed, and these advances have facilitated high-quality extraction of quantitative features as well as the implementation of novel devices for use in neurological disorders. Major advancements encompass the use of low-field dedicated MRI systems within the NICU and trials of ultralow-field portable MRI systems at the bedside. Additionally, higher-field magnets are utilized to enhance image quality, and ultrafast brain MRI is employed to decrease image acquisition time. Furthermore, the implementation of advanced MRI sequences, the application of machine learning algorithms, multimodal neuroimaging techniques, motion correction techniques, and novel modalities are used to visualize pathologies that are not visible to the human eye. In this narrative review, we will discuss the fundamentals of these neuroimaging modalities, and their clinical applications to explore the present landscape of neonatal neuroimaging from bench to bedside.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".