Back

Biometry and volumetry in multi-centric fetal brain MRI: assessing the bias of super-resolution reconstruction

Sanchez, T.; Mihailov, A.; Koob, M.; Girard, N.; Manchon, A.; Valenzuela, I.; Gomez-Chiari, M.; Marti Juan, G.; Pron, A.; Eixarch, E.; Piella, G.; Gonzalez Ballester, M. A.; Camara, O.; Dunet, V.; Auzias, G.; Bach Cuadra, M.

2024-09-24 obstetrics and gynecology
10.1101/2024.09.23.24313965 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundSuper-resolution reconstruction (SRR) of fetal brain magnetic resonance imaging has the potential to enable the development of new imaging biomarkers to better study in utero neurodevelopment. However, potential biases in 2D biometric and 3D volumetric measurements due to different SRR techniques remain understudied. PurposeTo assess the consistency of biometric and volumetric measurements across three hospitals using three widely used SRR pipelines. Materials and MethodsThis retrospective study used T2-weighted (T2w) fetal brain MRI scans acquired in routine clinical practice at three hospitals. MRIs from each subject were reconstructed with each of the 3 SRR methods. Four experts did biometric measurements on each SRR volume blinded to the method used. Automated 3D volumetry was performed using a state-of-the-art segmentation method. A univariate analysis was first carried out with Friedman tests with post-hoc Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, and results were confirmed in a multivariate analysis accounting for the effect of gestational age and different raters, using a t-distributed generalized additive model. An additional qualitative evaluation was performed to assess how likely clinicians would be to use the current SRR volumes in their practice, and whether they would prefer it to low-resolution T2w acquisitions. Differences were assessed with Friedman tests and post-hoc Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Results84 healthy subjects were included in three gestational age groups ([21-28): 25.4{+/-}1.9, [28-32): 29.3{+/-}1.3, [32-36): 33.5{+/-}1.2). Statistically significant differences in biometric measurements were found, but consistently remained below voxel width (0.8 mm). Automated 3D volumetry revealed systematic but very small effects (<2.8%). The qualitative evaluation showed systematic differences between SRR methods for the perception of white matter intensity (p=0.02) and sharpness of the image (p=0.01). ConclusionVariations in 2D and 3D quantitative measurements did not show any large systematic bias when using different SRR methods for radiological assessment in clinical routine across multiple centers, scanners, and raters. SummaryDifferent super-resolution reconstruction methods for fetal brain MRI volumes lead to negligible variations in 2D or 3D quantitative measurements; this may help achieve larger sample sizes in prenatal development studies. Key Results- In this multi-centric retrospective study, 252 super-resolution reconstructions (SRR) scans from 84 healthy subjects showed negligible variations in 2D in biometric measures (below the voxel with of 0.8 mm; p<0.001). - 3D measurements revealed small variations ranging from 0.8 % in supratentorial tissues (p<0.001) to 2.8% in the extra-cerebral cerebrospinal fluid (p<0.001). - Clinicians favored having both low resolution and SRR volumes available.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.9%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 5%
10.6%
3
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 2%
10.2%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 18%
10.2%
5
Aperture Neuro
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
6
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.0%
7
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.0%
8
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
9
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.6%
10
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
11
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.4%
12
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
13
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
72 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
14
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
15
NMR in Biomedicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
16
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
17
Applied Sciences
24 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
18
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
19
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
20
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
21
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.8%
22
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring
38 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
23
Imaging Neuroscience
242 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
24
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%