Back

3D MRI atlases of congenital aortic arch anomalies and normal fetal heart: application to automated multi-label segmentation

Uus, A.; van Poppel, M. P. M.; Steinweg, J. K.; Grigorescu, I.; Egloff Collado, A.; Ramirez Gilliland, P.; Roberts, T. A.; Hajnal, J. V.; Rutherford, M. A.; Lloyd, D. F. A.; Pushparajah, K.; Deprez, M.

2022-01-18 bioinformatics
10.1101/2022.01.16.476503 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Background3D image-domain reconstruction of black blood contrast T2w SSTSE fetal MRI datasets using slice-to-volume registration methods showed to provide high-resolution 3D images of the heart with superior visualisation of fetal aortic arch anomalies [1]. However, there is a lack of formalisation of the MRI appearance of fetal cardiovascular anatomy and standardisation of vessel segmentation protocols. MethodsIn this work, we present the first set of 3D fetal MRI atlases defining normal and abnormal fetal aortic arch anatomy created from 3D reconstructed images from 87 subjects scanned between 29-34 weeks of gestation with postnatally confirmed outcomes. We also implement and evaluate atlas-guided registration and deep learning (UNETR) methods for automated 3D multi-label fetal heart vessel segmentation. ResultsWe created four atlases representing the average anatomy of the normal fetal heart, coarctation of the aorta, right aortic arch and suspected double aortic arch. Inspection of atlases confirmed the expected pronounced differences in the anatomy of the aortic arch. The results of the multi-label heart vessel UNETR segmentation showed 100% per-vessel detection rate for both normal and abnormal aortic arch anatomy. ConclusionsThis work introduces the first set of 3D black blood T2w MRI atlases of the normal and abnormal fetal cardiovascular anatomy along with detailed segmentation of the major cardiovascular structures. We also demonstrated the feasibility of using deep learning for multi-label vessel segmentation.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.