Single vs. multi-slice assessments of in vivo placental T2∗ measurements

IF 3 2区 医学 Q2 DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY Placenta Pub Date : 2024-09-10 DOI:10.1016/j.placenta.2024.09.006
{"title":"Single vs. multi-slice assessments of in vivo placental T2∗ measurements","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.placenta.2024.09.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Placental health is vital for maternal and fetal well-being, and placental T2∗ has been suggested to identify in vivo placental dysfunction prior to delivery. However, ideal regions of interest to best inform functional assessments of the placenta remain unknown. The aim of this study is to compare global and slice-wise measures of in-vivo placental T2∗ assessments.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This prospective study recruited pregnant people with singleton pregnancies between December 2017 and February 2022.3D multi-echo RF-spoiled gradient echo sequences were acquired, and placental T2∗ values were derived from global and slice-wise approaches. Statistical analyses included Pearson correlation coefficients, concordance correlation coefficients (CCC), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and Bland-Altman analyses.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 115 participants (mean gestational age, 29.25 ± 5.05 weeks), 68 were healthy controls, and 47 were high-risk pregnancies. Global and slice-wise placental T2∗ assessments for the entire cohort showed no significant difference nor for individual subgroups (healthy controls or high-risk). Pearson correlation values ranged between 0.88 and 0.99 for mean global and slice-wise placental T2∗. CCC analyses ranged from 0.88 to 0.99 for mean T2∗, and ICC analyses ranged between 0.88 and 0.99 for mean T2∗, showing a strong agreement between measurements. Bland-Altman analyses depicted T2∗ differences across coverage methods, and groups resided within the 95 % limits of agreement.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>Single-slice placental assessments offer robust, comparable T2∗ values to global assessments, with the added benefit of reducing post-processing time and SAR exposure. This supports slice-wise approaches as valid alternatives for assessing placental health in various pregnancies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":20203,"journal":{"name":"Placenta","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Placenta","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143400424006489","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Placental health is vital for maternal and fetal well-being, and placental T2∗ has been suggested to identify in vivo placental dysfunction prior to delivery. However, ideal regions of interest to best inform functional assessments of the placenta remain unknown. The aim of this study is to compare global and slice-wise measures of in-vivo placental T2∗ assessments.

Methods

This prospective study recruited pregnant people with singleton pregnancies between December 2017 and February 2022.3D multi-echo RF-spoiled gradient echo sequences were acquired, and placental T2∗ values were derived from global and slice-wise approaches. Statistical analyses included Pearson correlation coefficients, concordance correlation coefficients (CCC), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and Bland-Altman analyses.

Results

Of 115 participants (mean gestational age, 29.25 ± 5.05 weeks), 68 were healthy controls, and 47 were high-risk pregnancies. Global and slice-wise placental T2∗ assessments for the entire cohort showed no significant difference nor for individual subgroups (healthy controls or high-risk). Pearson correlation values ranged between 0.88 and 0.99 for mean global and slice-wise placental T2∗. CCC analyses ranged from 0.88 to 0.99 for mean T2∗, and ICC analyses ranged between 0.88 and 0.99 for mean T2∗, showing a strong agreement between measurements. Bland-Altman analyses depicted T2∗ differences across coverage methods, and groups resided within the 95 % limits of agreement.

Discussion

Single-slice placental assessments offer robust, comparable T2∗ values to global assessments, with the added benefit of reducing post-processing time and SAR exposure. This supports slice-wise approaches as valid alternatives for assessing placental health in various pregnancies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Placenta
Placenta 医学-发育生物学
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
10.50%
发文量
391
审稿时长
78 days
期刊介绍: Placenta publishes high-quality original articles and invited topical reviews on all aspects of human and animal placentation, and the interactions between the mother, the placenta and fetal development. Topics covered include evolution, development, genetics and epigenetics, stem cells, metabolism, transport, immunology, pathology, pharmacology, cell and molecular biology, and developmental programming. The Editors welcome studies on implantation and the endometrium, comparative placentation, the uterine and umbilical circulations, the relationship between fetal and placental development, clinical aspects of altered placental development or function, the placental membranes, the influence of paternal factors on placental development or function, and the assessment of biomarkers of placental disorders.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Preeclampsia and transport of ions and small molecules: A literature review Mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress in selective fetal growth restriction Down-regulation of CORO1C mediated by lncMALAT1/miR-133a-3p axis contributes to trophoblast dysfunction and preeclampsia Single vs. multi-slice assessments of in vivo placental T2∗ measurements
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1