Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Scanner-based real-time automated volumetry reporting of the fetus, amniotic fluid, placenta and umbilical cord for fetal MRI at 0.55T

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A single multi-region nnU-Net pipeline segments the fetus, placenta, amniotic fluid, and umbilical cord from a whole-uterus 0.55T bSSFP stack and delivers a PDF volumetry report with estimated fetal weight and centiles on the scanner…

desk verdict Genuinely new scanner-integrated real-time fetal volumetry pipeline, but the quantitative validation rests on a non-independent ground truth and a small test set; treat the Dice numbers as upper bounds until an independent manual validation is done. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05388 v1 pith:HJYYDLCM submitted 2025-07-07 physics.med-ph

Sara Neves Silva , Alena Uus , Hadi Waheed , Simi Bansal , Kamilah St Clair , Wendy Norman , Jordina Aviles Verdera , Daniel Cromb
show 13 more authors
Tomas Woodgate Milou van Poppel Johannes K Steinweg Jacqueline Matthew Kuberan Pushparajah David Lloyd Vanessa Kyriakopoulou Dimitris Siasakos Anna David Joseph V Hajnal Lisa Story Mary A Rutherford Jana Hutter
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.med-ph PACS 87.61.-c
keywords fetalMRIvolumetrynnU-Netscannerdeploymentweightestimation0.55TbSSFPsegmentationautomatedreporting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Fetal MRI can measure volumes of the fetus, placenta, amniotic fluid, and umbilical cord directly from three-dimensional images, but routine practice still relies on indirect 2D ultrasound estimates, and automated MRI volumetry has so far run offline after the scan. This paper aims to move that measurement onto the scanner: immediately after a whole-uterus balanced steady-state free-precession (bSSFP) stack is acquired at 0.55T, a self-configuring deep learning network (nnU-Net) parcellates the uterus into five regions, computes volumes and estimated fetal weight, compares them to late-gestation centiles, and produces a PDF report on the scanner console before the session ends. Retrospectively, the segmentation matches manual refinements with high overlap scores (Dice) for the large regions (above 0.98 for fetus, placenta, and amniotic fluid; 0.91 for umbilical cord); prospectively, 50 cases ran through the full deployment without a segmentation failure. If this holds, quantitative fetal volumetry could become a routine, operator-independent part of the MRI exam, and the same measurements could be available outside specialist centres.

What carries the argument

The machinery that carries the argument is the multi-region nnU-Net segmentation model: a 3D U-Net with six encoder and five decoder stages, trained with combined Dice and cross-entropy loss to label fetal head, fetal body, placenta, amniotic fluid, and umbilical cord from whole-uterus bSSFP stacks. Its output feeds the rest of the chain: volume extraction for each label, estimated fetal weight computed from fetal volume via two linear models [31,32], centile and z-score plotting against normative charts built from 90 control subjects, and automatic PDF report generation. The scanner-side integration uses the prototype inline-processing interface FIRE to stream each reconstructed stack to an external processing computer, trigger the model, and return the report to the console, which is what converts a retrospective segmentation method into a real-time clinical tool.

What would settle it

Time the pipeline on, say, 20 new cases from a different gestational-age range: measure the interval between the end of the bSSFP stack acquisition and the appearance of the PDF report on the scanner console, and compare automated volumes with independent manual segmentations. The central claim is refuted if the report routinely takes longer than the acquisition itself, if any case fails to produce a report, or if overlap for the large regions drops well below the reported values outside the 37-40 week training window.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that fully automated, real-time intra-uterine volumetry can be run directly on a 0.55T fetal MRI scanner. A single multi-region nnU-Net, trained on 146 whole-uterus bSSFP stacks, segments the fetal head, fetal body, placenta, amniotic fluid, and umbilical cord in one pass; a processing script converts those labels into volumes, an estimated fetal weight, centile and z-score visualisations against normative charts, and a PDF report; and the whole chain is triggered automatically as soon as the stack is reconstructed, with inference taking about 45 seconds. The authors report that this is the first workflow to combine all five intra-uterine regions in a single network and the first to deliver the resulting volumetric report on the scanner console during the acquisition, supported by retrospective testing on 18 subjects and prospective deployment in 50 cases.

Load-bearing premise

The entire quantitative evaluation rests on the assumption that the manually refined ground-truth labels are accurate; if the underlying labels are biased, the reported Dice scores and volume differences inherit that bias.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single bSSFP stack can yield combined measurements for fetal growth, placental volume, amniotic fluid status, and cord metrics in one automated pass, enabling joint analysis that previously required separate pipelines.
  • Radiologist workload should drop because slice-wise manual segmentation, particularly time-consuming for late-gestation fetuses, is replaced by a report available at the console.
  • Clinicians can react during the scan, such as ordering additional dedicated sequences when a z-score flags a deviation, instead of discovering the issue after the patient has left.
  • Saving segmentation labels with the case files removes the need for offline post-processing workstations, which the paper names as the basis for exporting the approach to non-specialist centres.
  • The method sets a baseline that can be extended to earlier gestational ages, higher field strengths, and finer sub-parcellation of the fetal brain and body, exactly the extensions the paper lists as future work.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Our inference: the normative centiles are built only from 90 control subjects at 35-39 weeks, so any z-score outside that window is an extrapolation even though the pipeline will happily report one.
  • Our inference: the paper's evidence for clinical benefit is mostly qualitative; a clean test would compare automatically estimated fetal weight against birthweight on a large cohort, since only anecdotal agreement is reported.
  • Our inference: the umbilical cord label, with Dice 0.91 and roughly 11 percent relative volume difference, is probably too coarse for cord-specific decisions even if it is fine for visualisation; clinical adoption may need a dedicated cord network.
  • Our inference: the prospective 'no failures' claim rests on qualitative human scoring, not an automated quality gate; adding automatic quality control, which the paper lists as future work, would make the deployment claim quantitatively checkable in routine use.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript describes a scanner-integrated pipeline for real-time automated multi-region intrauterine volumetry in fetal MRI at 0.55T. A 3D nnU-Net is trained on 146 bSSFP whole-uterus stacks to segment fetal body, fetal head, placenta, umbilical cord, and amniotic fluid. The segmentation outputs feed an automated reporting tool that computes structure volumes, estimated fetal weight, centiles, and z-scores against normative charts, and generates a PDF report available on the scanner console via the FIRE/Gadgetron framework. Retrospective evaluation is reported on 18 datasets (abstract states 36 stacks of 18 subjects), with Dice scores of 0.99 for fetus, 0.98 for placenta, 0.99 for amniotic fluid, and 0.91 for umbilical cord. Prospective deployment in 50 cases is described, with no segmentation failures and over 95% of structures rated excellent or good, and the normative ranges are derived from 90 control subjects.

Significance. If the reported performance is reliable, this is a useful and timely contribution: it demonstrates the first fully scanner-deployed, real-time multi-ROI fetal volumetry and reporting pipeline for low-field MRI, an application area with clear clinical value for late-gestation assessment. The integration of segmentation, EFW, normative centiles, and report generation into the acquisition workflow is technically nontrivial, and the prospective demonstration on 50 cases with no failures is a meaningful feasibility result for a prototype clinical tool. The work is less strong as a standalone segmentation-methods paper, since the retrospective test set is small and the ground-truth labels are not fully independent. The strongest contribution is the deployed pipeline and its workflow feasibility rather than the evidence for diagnostic accuracy.

major comments (4)
  1. [Methods, Multi-regional internal uterine segmentation; Table 1] The ground-truth labels used for both training and retrospective evaluation were created by refining outputs of in-house pre-trained DL networks, with inter-observer agreement measured only on a subset and the primary refiner (R1) having 1.5 years of experience; no fully independent manual segmentation from scratch is reported. Because the in-house networks that initialized the labels may share systematic errors with the trained nnU-Net, the high Dice scores and small relative volume differences in Table 1 could be substantially optimistic. The authors should either add an independent manual validation set or quantify how the reported metrics change when the label-generation procedure is varied.
  2. [Abstract; Methods, Multi-regional internal uterine segmentation; Table 1] The abstract states quantitative evaluation on 36 stacks of 18 fetal subjects, while the Methods say 36 images (18 in each orientation) and Table 1 reports results for 18 datasets; the number of subjects, stacks, and test sets is therefore inconsistent. The paper should clarify the exact sample size, report whether coronal and axial predictions are pooled or separate, and provide per-orientation metrics; with N=18 subjects, confidence intervals for the Dice scores and volume differences should also be given.
  3. [Scanner-based automated reporting; Fig. 7] The prospective scanner deployment evaluation is qualitative only, reporting that over 95% of anatomical structures were rated excellent or good and that no segmentation failures occurred, with no quantitative comparison of predicted volumes or segmentations to a reference in the 50 prospective cases. The central claim of accurate automated reporting during acquisition thus rests entirely on retrospective metrics plus subjective scoring; the authors should provide quantitative prospective metrics on at least a subset of cases, or explicitly reframe the prospective result as a workflow-feasibility demonstration pending quantitative validation.
  4. [Normative ranges for late gestation datasets; Results, Normative ranges] The normative centiles and z-scores used in the automated reports are generated from segmentations produced by the same trained network and manually refined 'when required' in fewer than 20% of cases. Since the normative reference itself is not independently established, the z-scores in the reports inherit any systematic bias from the segmentation model. The manuscript should state this limitation explicitly and, ideally, validate the centile curves against an independent manual reading or against published normative data.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1; Fig. 2] The protocol defines fetal body and fetal head as separate labels (Fig. 2), but Table 1 reports a single Dice score for the 'Fetus'; please report head and body Dice separately, as the abstract and discussion imply a five-label parcellation.
  2. [Methods, Multi-regional internal uterine segmentation] The text says model performance was assessed using the 'pseudo-Dice similarity coefficient', while Table 1 reports 'Dice'; please define pseudo-Dice and clarify whether the two metrics are the same or different.
  3. [Methods, Multi-regional internal uterine segmentation; Results] The training/validation split is described as 117/29 of 146 datasets, but the source of the 36 retrospective test images is not stated; please clarify whether these images come from the same 73 subjects or from a separate cohort, and confirm no overlap with training subjects.
  4. [Fetal weight estimation] The Baker and Kacem formulas are applied to the total fetal volume label, but no validation of estimated fetal weight against birthweight is provided for this cohort; the text should state explicitly that EFW accuracy was not directly assessed in this study.
  5. [Normative ranges for late gestation datasets; Fig. 4] The normative centile models are described only as 'classical linear fitting [33]'; please give the model form, covariates (e.g., gestational age), the number of subjects per gestational week, and any confidence bounds for the fitted centile curves.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the segmentation accuracy claim is benchmarked against human-refined labels, EFW uses published external formulas, and normative charts derive from a separate cohort; remaining concerns are validity/generalizability, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is not circular. The nnU-Net is trained on bSSFP images with ground-truth labels produced by in-house network outputs plus manual refinement (Methods, Multi-regional internal uterine segmentation), and the retrospective evaluation compares network predictions to the average of independently refined segmentations by R1, R2 and R3 (Table 1). This is a benchmark against human-refined references, not against the model's own training labels or an internal objective, so the reported Dice and volume differences are not forced by construction. Fetal weight estimation uses the published Baker and Kacem linear formulas applied to the segmented fetal volume, which are external equations and not fitted in this paper. Normative centiles and z-scores are computed from a separate 90-subject MiBirth control cohort segmented with the trained network and manually refined when required; although this uses the same pipeline, it is an empirical reference cohort rather than a definitional identity with any single prospective measurement. The manuscript's own Limitations section acknowledges that training and testing come predominantly from the same late-GA, 0.55T, singleton, normal-anatomy protocol, which is a generalizability risk rather than a circular step. Likewise, the abstract's 36-stack evaluation is not fully reconciled with Table 1's 18-dataset table, but that is a reporting inconsistency. No equation in the paper reduces to its input, and no load-bearing claim is justified solely by a self-citation. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of manually refined labels, external EFW calibrations, and internally fitted normative charts. No new physical or computational entities are invented; the pipeline is assembled from existing methods and tools.

free parameters (3)
  • Baker EFW linear coefficients = a=1.031 kg/L, b=0.12 kg
    External calibration from Baker et al. [31]; converts fetal volume to estimated fetal weight. Not fitted in this paper, but the EFW values and EFW centiles depend directly on these constants.
  • Kacem EFW linear coefficients = a=0.989 kg/L, b=0.147 kg
    External calibration from Kacem et al. [32]; alternative EFW formula used in the report.
  • Normative centile model parameters (intercept and slope per structure and centile) = not reported in the manuscript
    Fitted to 90 MiBirth control subjects using classical linear fitting [33]; determines z-scores for fetal volume, placenta volume, amniotic fluid volume, and EFW. These are fitted values from the authors' own data, not externally validated.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Manually refined labels (in-house DL outputs plus human edits) are an accurate reference standard for the five ROIs.
    All retrospective Dice and volume-difference metrics compare network predictions to these labels; label errors propagate into the reported accuracy. Methods, Multi-regional internal uterine segmentation.
  • domain assumption Baker and Kacem EFW formulas, derived on other MRI cohorts, are valid for 0.55T bSSFP fetal volume measurements.
    EFW, EFW centiles, and the prospective report values rely on these formulas; no birthweight validation is included. Methods, Fetal weight estimation.
  • domain assumption The 90-subject MiBirth control cohort with manually refined segmentations represents normative late-gestation ranges.
    Z-score visualizations are computed against charts from this single-site, mostly 36-40 week cohort; limited external representativeness. Methods, Normative ranges.
  • domain assumption Whole-uterus bSSFP coronal stacks fully contain the uterus and all target structures without truncation.
    Volume extraction assumes the acquired stack covers the full uterus; any truncation directly biases all reported volumes. Methods, Cohort, datasets and acquisition parameters.
  • domain assumption The FIRE/Gadgetron prototype framework reliably streams and processes images in real time without data loss.
    The scanner-deployment claim depends on this external prototype infrastructure. Methods, Scanner-based deployment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scanner-based real-time automated volumetry reporting of the fetus, amniotic fluid, placenta and umbilical cord for fetal MRI at 0.55T." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HJYYDLCM

@misc{pith2026250705388,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scanner-based real-time automated volumetry reporting of the fetus, amniotic fluid, placenta and umbilical cord for fetal MRI at 0.55T},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HJYYDLCM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05388}
}
read the original abstract

Purpose: This work aims to enable real-time automated intra-uterine volumetric reporting and fetal weight estimation for fetal MRI, deployed directly on the scanner. Methods: A multi-region segmentation nnUNet was trained on 146 bSSFP images of 73 fetal subjects (coronal and axial orientations) for the parcellation of the fetal head, fetal body, placenta, amniotic fluid and umbilical cord from whole uterus bSSFP stacks. A reporting tool was then developed to integrate the segmentation outputs into an automated report, providing volumetric measurements, fetal weight estimations, and z-score visualisations. The complete pipeline was subsequently deployed on a 0.55T MRI scanner, enabling real-time inference and fully automated reporting in the duration of the acquisition. Results: The segmentation pipeline was quantitatively and retrospectively evaluated on 36 stacks of 18 fetal subjects and demonstrated sufficient performance for all labels, with high scores (>0.98) for the fetus, placenta and amniotic fluid, and 0.91 for the umbilical cord. The prospective evaluation of the scanner deployment step was successfully performed on 50 cases, with the regional volumetric reports available directly on the scanner. Conclusions: This work demonstrated the feasibility of multi-regional intra-uterine segmentation, fetal weight estimation and automated reporting in real-time. This study provides a robust baseline solution for the integration of fully automated scanner-based measurements into fetal MRI reports.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Prayer, D., Malinger, G., De Catte, L., De Keersmaecker, B., Gonçalves, L.F ., Kasprian, G., Laifer-Narin, S., Lee, W., Mil- lischer, A.-E., Platt, L., Prayer, F ., Pugash, D., Salomon, L.J., Sanz Cortes, M., Stuhr, F ., Timor-T ritsch, I.E., T utschek, B., Twickler, D., Raine-Fenning, N. (2023). ISUOG Practice Guidelines (updated): performance of fetal m...

    doi:10.1002/uog.26129 2023

  2. [2]

    Aucott, S.W., Donohue, P .K., Northington, F .J. (2004). Increased morbidity in severe early intrauterine growth restriction. Journal of Perinatology, 24(7), 435–440. https:/ /doi.org/10.1038/SJ.JP .7211116

    work page doi:10.1038/sj.jp 2004

  3. [3]

    Weissmann-Brenner, A., Simchen, M.J., Zilberberg, E., Kalter, A., Weisz, B., Achiron, R., Dulitzky, M. (2012). Maternal and neonatal outcomes of large for gestational age pregnancies. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 91(7), 844–849. https:/ /doi.org/10.1111/J.1600-0412.2012.01412.X

    work page arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    Story, L., Zhang, T., Steinweg, J.K., Hutter, J., Matthew, J., Dassios, T., Seed, P .T., Pasupathy, D., Allsop, J., Hajnal, J.V., Greenough, A., Shennan, A.H., Rutherford, M. (2020). Foetal lung volumes in pregnant women who deliver very preterm: a pilot study. Pediatric Research, 87(6), 1066–1071. https:/ /doi.org/10.1038/s41390-019-0717-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41390-019-0717-9 2020

  5. [5]

    González-González, N.L., González-Dávila, E., González Marrero, L., Padrón, E., Conde, J.R., Plasencia, W. (2017). Value of placental volume and vascular flow indices as predictors of intrauterine growth retardation. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 212, 13–19. https:/ /doi.org/10.1016/J.EJOGRB.2017.03.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.03.005 2017

  6. [6]

    Soongsatitanon, A., Phupong, V. (2019). First trimester 3D ultrasound placental volume for predicting preeclampsia and/or intrauterine growth restriction. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 39(4), 474–479. https:/ /doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2018.1529152

    work page arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    De Laat, M.W.M., Franx, A., Bots, M.L., Visser, G.H.A., Nikkels, P .G.J. (2006). Umbilical coil- ing index in normal and complicated pregnancies. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 107(5), 1049–1055. https:/ /doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000209197.84185.15

    work page arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    Krakowiak, P ., Smith, E.N., De Bruyn, G., Lydon-Rochelle, M.T. (2004). Risk factors and outcomes associated with a short umbilical cord. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 103(1), 119–127. https:/ /doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000102706.84063.C7

    work page arXiv 2004

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Hughes, D.S., Magann, E.F ., Whittington, J.R., Wendel, M.P ., Sandlin, A.T., Ounpraseuth, S.T. (2020). Accuracy of the ultrasound estimate of the amniotic fluid volume (amniotic fluid index and single deepest pocket) to identify actual low, normal, and high amniotic fluid volume...

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Kadji, C., Cannie, M.M., Resta, S., Guez, D., Abi-Khalil, F ., De Angelis, R., Jani, J.C. (2019). Magnetic resonance imaging for prenatal estimation of birthweight in pregnancy: review of available data, techniques, and future perspectives. American Journal of Obstetrics and G...

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    Liao, K., T ang, L., Peng, C., Chen, L., Chen, R., Huang, L., Liu, P ., Chen, C. (2019). Two new models for the estimation of foetal weight more than a week before delivery: An MRI study. European Journal of Radiology, 121, Article 108729. https:/ /doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.06.026

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    Cannie, M.M., Jani, J.C., Van Kerkhove, F ., Meerschaert, J., De Keyzer, F ., Lewi, L., Deprest, J.A., Dymarkowski, S. (2008). Fetal body volume at MR imaging to quantify total fetal lung volume: Normal ranges. Radiology, 247(1), 197–203. https:/ /doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2471070682

    2008 doi

  5. [13]

    Story, L., Hutter, J., Zhang, T., Shennan, A.H., Rutherford, M. (2018). The use of antenatal fetal magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of patients at high risk of preterm birth. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 222, 134–141. http...

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    K., Meller, C

    Morris, R. K., Meller, C. H., T amblyn, J., Malin, G. M., Riley, R. D., Kilby, M. D., Robson, S. C., Khan, K. S. (2014). Association and prediction of amniotic fluid measurements for adverse pregnancy outcome: systematic review and meta-analysis. *BJOG: An International Journal...

    2014

  7. [15]

    Bouachba, A., Bartin, R., De Jesus Neves, J., Bussières, L., Grévent, D., Virfollet, J., Gauchard, G., Bobet, L., Roux, N., Glemain, B., Salomon, L.J., Gorincour, G. (2025). Normative range of MRI-based fetal body volume and association with ultrasonographically estimated feta...

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    Lo, J., Nithiyanantham, S., Cardinell, J., Y oung, D., Cho, S., Kirubarajan, A., Wagner, M.W., Azma, R., Miller, S., Seed, M., Ertl-Wagner, B., Sussman, D. (2021). Cross attention squeeze excitation network (Case-net) for whole body fetal MRI segmentation. Sensors, 21(13), 449...

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P ., Brox, T. (2015). U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation. In: MICCAI (pp. 234–241)

    2015

  10. [18]

    Specktor-Fadida, B., Link-Sourani, D., Rabinowich, A., Miller, E., Levchakov, A., Avisdris, N., Ben-Sira, L., Hiersch, L., Joskowicz, L., Ben-Bashat, D. (2024). Deep learning–based segmentation of whole-body fetal MRI and fetal weight estimation: assessing performance, repeata...

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Nowak, S., Mader, M., Theis, M., Vollbrecht, T., Isaak, A., Kuetting, D., Pieper, C

    Bischoff, L. M., Nowak, S., Mader, M., Theis, M., Vollbrecht, T., Isaak, A., Kuetting, D., Pieper, C. C., Geipel, A., Kipf- mueller, F ., Strizek, B., Sprinkart, A. M., Luetkens, J. A. (2025). Fetal MRI deep learning segmentation of body and lung in congenital diaphragmatic her...

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    Pietsch, M., Ho, A., Bardanzellu, A., Zeidan, A. M. A., Chappell, L. C., Hajnal, J. V., Rutherford, M., Hutter, J. (2021). APPLAUSE: Automatic Prediction of PLAcental health via U-net Segmentation and statistical Evaluation. Medical Image Analysis, 72, 102145. https:/ /doi.org...

    2021

  13. [21]

    Li, J., Shi, Z., Zhu, J., Liu, J., Qiu, L., Song, Y., Wang, L., Li, Y., Liu, Y., Zhang, D., Y ang, H., Fu, L. (2024). Placenta seg- mentation in magnetic resonance imaging: Addressing position and shape of uncertainty and blurred placenta boundary. Biomedical Signal Processing...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Costanzo, A., Ertl-Wagner, B., Sussman, D. (2023). AFNet Algorithm for Automatic Amniotic Fluid Segmentation from Fetal MRI. Bioengineering, 10(7). https:/ /doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10070783

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    V., Schuller, R., Seixas, R

    Csillag, D., Monteiro Paes, L., Ramos, T., Romano, J. V., Schuller, R., Seixas, R. B., Oliveira, R. I., Orenstein, P . (2023). AmnioML: Amniotic Fluid Segmentation and Volume Prediction with Uncertainty Quantification. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 37, No. ...

    2023 doi

  16. [25]

    Clair, K., McElroy, S., Malik, S., Hajnal, J., T omi-T ricot, R., Rutherford, M., Hutter, J

    Aviles Verdera, J., Bortolazzi, A., Neves Silva, S., Payette, K., St. Clair, K., McElroy, S., Malik, S., Hajnal, J., T omi-T ricot, R., Rutherford, M., Hutter, J. (2025). HERON: High-Efficiency Real-Time mOtion quantification and re-acquisitioN for Fetal diffusion MRI. IEEE T rans...

    2025

  17. [26]

    Neves Silva, S., Aviles Verdera, J., T omi-T ricot, R., Neji, R., Uus, A., Grigorescu, I., Wilkinson, T., Ozenne, V., Lewin, A., Story, L., De Vita, E., Rutherford, M., Pushparajah, K., Hajnal, J., Hutter, J. (2023). Real-time fetal brain tracking for functional fetal MRI. Mag...

    2023 doi

  18. [27]

    A., Hajnal, J

    Neves Silva, S., McElroy, S., Aviles Verdera, J., Colford, K., St Clair, K., T omi-T ricot, R., Uus, A., Ozenne, V., Hall, M., Story, L., Pushparajah, K., Rutherford, M. A., Hajnal, J. V., Hutter, J. (2024). Fully automated planning for anatomical fetal brain MRI on 0.55T. Mag...

    2024 doi

  19. [28]

    Uus, A., Neves Silva, S., Aviles Verdera, J., Payette, K., Hall, M., Colford, K., Luis, A., Sousa, H., Ning, Z., Roberts, T., McElroy, S., Deprez, M., Hajnal, J., Rutherford, M., Story, L., Hutter, J. (2025). Scanner-based real-time three-dimensional brain+body slice-to-volume...

    2025 doi

  20. [29]

    Chow, K., Kellman, P ., Xue, H. (2021). Prototyping image reconstruction and analysis with FIRE. In SCMR 24th annual scientific sessions. Virtual Meeting

    2021

  21. [30]

    F ., Kohl, S

    Isensee, F ., Jaeger, P . F ., Kohl, S. A. A., Petersen, J., Maier-Hein, K. H. (2021). nnU-Net: a self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation. Nature Methods, 18(2), 203–211. https:/ /doi.org/10.1038/s41592- 020-01008-z

    2021 doi

  22. [31]

    N., Johnson, I

    Baker, P . N., Johnson, I. R., Gowland, P . A., Hykin, J., Harvey, P . R., Freeman, A., Adams, V., Mansfield, P ., Worthington, B. S. (1994). Fetal weight estimation by echo-planar magnetic resonance imaging. The Lancet, 343(8898), 644–645. https:/ /doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(9...

    1994 doi

  23. [32]

    M., Kadji, C., Dobrescu, O., Lo Zito, L., Ziane, S., Strizek, B., Evrard, A.-S., Gubana, F ., Guccia- rdo, L., Staelens, R., Jani, J

    Kacem, Y., Cannie, M. M., Kadji, C., Dobrescu, O., Lo Zito, L., Ziane, S., Strizek, B., Evrard, A.-S., Gubana, F ., Guccia- rdo, L., Staelens, R., Jani, J. C. (2013). Fetal Weight Estimation: Comparison of Two-dimensional US and MR Imaging Assessments. Radiology, 267(3), 902–9...

    2013 doi

  24. [33]

    Royston, P ., Wright, E. M. (1998). How to construct ‘normal ranges’ for fetal variables. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 11(1), 30–38. https:/ /doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.1998.11010030.x

    1998 arXiv

  25. [34]

    F ., Eskild, A., Sommerfelt, S., Gjesdal, K., Borthne, A

    Peterson, H. F ., Eskild, A., Sommerfelt, S., Gjesdal, K., Borthne, A. S., Mørkrid, L., Hillestad, V. (2022). Percentiles of intrauterine placental volume and placental volume relative to fetal volume: A prospective magnetic resonance imaging study. Placenta, 121, 40–45. https...

    2022 doi

  26. [35]

    Sanchez, T., Esteban, O., Gomez, Y., Pron, A., Koob, M., Dunet, V., Girard, N., Jakab, A., Eixarch, E., Auzias, G., Bach Cuadra, M. (2024). FetMRQC: A robust quality control system for multi-centric fetal brain MRI. Medical Image Analysis, 103282. https:/ /doi.org/10.1016/j.me...

    2024

  27. [36]

    W., Ertl-Wagner, B., Sussman, D

    Lim, A., Lo, J., Wagner, M. W., Ertl-Wagner, B., Sussman, D. (2023). Motion artifact correction in fetal MRI based on a Generative Adversarial network method. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 81, 104484. https:/ /doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2022.104484

    2023

  28. [37]

    U., Kyriakopoulou, V., Makropoulos, A., Fukami-Gartner, A., Cromb, D., Davidson, A., Cordero-Grande, L., Price, A

    Uus, A. U., Kyriakopoulou, V., Makropoulos, A., Fukami-Gartner, A., Cromb, D., Davidson, A., Cordero-Grande, L., Price, A. N., Grigorescu, I., Williams, L. Z. J., Robinson, E. C., Lloyd, D., Pushparajah, K., Story, L., Hutter, J., Counsell, S. J., Edwards, A. D., Rutherford, M...

    2023 doi

  29. [38]

    U., Hall, M., Grigorescu, I., Avena Zampieri, C., Egloff Collado, A., Payette, K., Matthew, J., Kyriakopoulou, V., Hajnal, J

    Uus, A. U., Hall, M., Grigorescu, I., Avena Zampieri, C., Egloff Collado, A., Payette, K., Matthew, J., Kyriakopoulou, V., Hajnal, J. V., Hutter, J., Rutherford, M. A., Deprez, M., Story, L. (2024). Automated body organ segmentation, volumetry and population-averaged atlas for ...

    2024 doi

  30. [39]

    Milner, J., Arezina, J. (2018). The accuracy of ultrasound estimation of fetal weight in comparison to birth weight: A systematic review. *Ultrasound*, 26(1), 32–41. https:/ /doi.org/10.1177/1742271X17732807

    2018 doi

  31. [40]

    Li, R., Song, F ., Zhou, Q., Wu, W., Cao, Y., Zhang, G., Qian, Z., Wang, L. (2024). A Hybrid Model for Fetal Growth Restriction Assessment by Automatic Placental Radiomics on T2-Weighted MRI and Multifeature Fusion. *Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging*, Advance online publi...

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.