4.2 Article

Fetal Brain MRI Texture Analysis Identifies Different Microstructural Patterns in Adequate and Small for Gestational Age Fetuses at Term

Journal

FETAL DIAGNOSIS AND THERAPY
Volume 33, Issue 2, Pages 122-129

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000346566

Keywords

Fetal MRI; Intrauterine growth restriction; Small for gestational age; Texture analysis

Funding

  1. Cerebra Foundation for the Brain Injured Child (Carmarthen, Wales/UK)
  2. Thrasher Research Fund (Salt Lake City, Utah, USA)
  3. Fundacion Dexeus (Barcelona, Spain)
  4. Banca Civica de Caja Navarra (Proyecto TETD)
  5. Instituto de Salud Carlos III Rio Hortega Spain [CM10/00222]
  6. Instituto de Salud Carlos III Sara Borrell [CD09/00263]
  7. Comissionat per a Universitat i Recerca del Departament d'Innovacio, Universitats i Empreses de la Generalitat de Catalunya

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: We tested the hypothesis whether a texture analysis (TA) algorithm applied to MRI brain images identified different patterns in small for gestational age (SGA) fetuses as compared with adequate for gestational age (AGA). Study Design: MRI was performed on 83 SGA and 70 AGA at 37 weeks' GA. Texture features were quantified in the frontal lobe, basal ganglia, mesencephalon, cerebellum and cingulum. A classification algorithm based on discriminative models was used to correlate texture features with clinical diagnosis. Results: Region of interest delineation in all areas was achieved in 61 SGA (12 vasodilated) and 52 AGA; this was the sample for TA feature extraction which allowed classifying SGA from AGA with accuracies ranging from 90.9 to 98.9% in SGA versus AGA comparison and from 93.6 to 100% in vasodilated SGA versus AGA comparison. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that TA can detect brain differences in SGA fetuses. This supports the existence of brain microstructural changes in SGA fetuses. Copyright (c) 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available