| Literature DB >> 34429085 |
Ian Craig Simcock1,2,3, Susan Cheng Shelmerdine4,5,6, Dean Langan5, Guy Anna4,5,6, Neil James Sebire5,6,7, Owen John Arthurs4,5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current clinical post-mortem imaging techniques do not provide sufficiently high-resolution imaging for smaller fetuses after pregnancy loss. Post-mortem micro-CT is a non-invasive technique that can deliver high diagnostic accuracy for these smaller fetuses. The purpose of the study is to identify the main predictors of image quality for human fetal post-mortem micro-CT imaging.Entities:
Keywords: Human foetuses; Image quality; Maceration; Micro-CT; Post-mortem imaging
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34429085 PMCID: PMC8383392 DOI: 10.1186/s12880-021-00658-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Imaging ISSN: 1471-2342 Impact factor: 1.930
Fig. 1Axial micro-CT images acquired through the head (a,b) and chest (c,d) demonstrating incomplete (a, c) and complete (b, d) iodination. The areas of lower density (i.e., black) seen within the central portion of the images (a, c) demonstrate incomplete iodine penetration through the body, and hamper diagnostic interpretation of soft tissue structures. (Axial micro-CT images acquired at 100kv, 150uA, 354 ms, 1 frames per projection) (fpp) and 3141 number of projections.)
Fig. 2Axial micro-CT head images of four different fetuses demonstrating different degrees of maceration. a No maceration, b mild cracking and distortion of the image (add arrows), c moderate disruption with reduction in tissue planes (arrow), d non-diagnostic severe maceration
Fig. 3Axial micro-CT images through the head and chest in different fetuses, demonstrating differences in image quality. Images which were grainy and tissue planes indistinct were assessed as poor quality (a), with residual image graininess in moderate quality (b), which was imperceptible in high quality (c)
Study cohort demographic data and imaging parameter range
| N | Min | Max | Mean | SD | Median | Lower Qu | Upper Qu | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gestational age (weeks) | 258 | 11 | 24 | 16.0 | 2.50 | 16.0 | 14.0 | 17.8 |
| Post mortem interval (days) | 258 | 0 | 48 | 14.1 | 5.21 | 13 | 11.0 | 17.0 |
| Crown rump length (cm) | 258 | 4.0 | 18.6 | 10.4 | 2.92 | 10 | 8.0 | 12.5 |
| Crown heel length (cm) (missing = 1) | 257 | 5.7 | 26.2 | 14.3 | 4.25 | 14.1 | 11.0 | 17.4 |
| Head circumference (cm) | 258 | 4.1 | 16.9 | 9.60 | 2.91 | 9.3 | 7.2 | 11.9 |
| Post mortem weight (g) | 258 | 2.6 | 350.0 | 64.8 | 63.4 | 41.7 | 20.5 | 94.1 |
| Time to immersion (missing = 69) | ||||||||
| ≤ 10 days | 62 | 1 | 10 | 3.48 | 2.49 | 3 | 1 | 5 |
| > 10 days | 127 | 11 | 19 | 16.2 | 1.80 | 16 | 15 | 18 |
| Time Iodinated (days) (missing = 69) | 189 | 1 | 14 | 8.80 | 2.55 | 9.0 | 8.0 | 10.0 |
| Kilovoltage | 258 | 60 | 160 | 106 | 14.7 | 100 | 100 | 120 |
| Current (µA) | 258 | 78 | 400 | 142 | 44.6 | 130 | 120 | 150 |
| Power (Watts) | 258 | 7 | 40 | 15 | 4.9 | 14 | 12 | 17 |
| Projections | 258 | 1351 | 3141 | 2716 | 440 | 2808 | 2431 | 3141 |
Fig. 4Bimodal distribution of time to immersion across the fetuses included in our cohort
Fig. 5Difference in range in image quality scores between head and chest axial images, with head displaying greater overall image quality than chest.”
Simple and multivariable linear regression analysis
| Head images | Chest images | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unadjusted | Adjusted | Unadjusted | Adjusted | |||||||||||
| OR | 95% CI | R2 (%) | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | R2 | OR | 95% CI | |||||
| Patient demographics | ||||||||||||||
| Gestational Age (weeks) | − 0.014 | − 0.079, 0.052 | 0.678 | 0.1 | 0.076 | − 0.000, 0.152 | 0.050 | − 0.062 | − 0.113, − 0.010 | 0.020 | 2.1 | – | – | – |
| Post Mortem Interval (days) | − 0.008 | − 0.039, 0.024 | 0.638 | 0.1 | – | – | – | − 0.005 | − 0.030, 0.020 | 0.685 | 0.1 | – | – | – |
| Crown Rump Length (cm) | 0.004 | − 0.052, 0.060 | 0.891 | 0.0 | – | – | – | − 0.034 | − 0.078, 0.011 | 0.138 | 0.9 | – | – | – |
| Crown Heel Length (cm) | 0.012 | − 0.027, 0.050 | 0.549 | 0.1 | – | – | – | − 0.018 | − 0.049, 0.013 | 0.254 | 0.5 | – | – | – |
| Head Circumference (cm) | 0.021 | − 0.035, 0.077 | 0.464 | 0.2 | – | – | – | − 0.005 | − 0.050, 0.040 | 0.822 | 0.0 | – | – | – |
| Post Mortem Weight (100 g) | − 0.004 | − 0.263, 0.255 | 0.976 | 0.0 | − 0.716 | − 1.074, − 0.357 | < 0.001 | − 0.029 | − 0.235, 0.178 | 0.785 | 0.0 | − 0.337 | − 0.550, − 0.114 | 0.003 |
| Yes | 0.232 | − 0.139, 0.602 | 0.220 | 0.6 | – | – | – | 0.367 | 0.073, 0.660 | 0.015 | 2.6 | – | – | – |
(ref = IUD) | ||||||||||||||
| Miscarriage | 0.619 | 0.126, 1.110 | 0.014 | 0.469 | − 0.003, 0.940 | 0.051 | 0.219 | − 0.170, 0.608 | 0.269 | − 0.112 | − 0.480, 0.256 | 0.548 | ||
| TOP | 1.170 | 0.623, 1.710 | < 0.001 | 6.9 | 0.826 | 0.253, 1.400 | 0.005 | 0.895 | 0.466, 1.320 | < 0.001 | 9.3 | 0.326 | − 0.122, 0.775 | 0.152 |
Maceration score (autopsy, ref = 0) | ||||||||||||||
| 1 | − 0.410 | − 0.956, 0.136 | 0.140 | − 0.523 | − 1.027, − 0.020 | 0.042 | − 0.450 | − 0.874, − 0.026 | 0.038 | − 0.616 | − 1.003, − 0.229 | 0.001 | ||
| 2 | − 1.110 | − 1.85, − 0.376 | 0.003 | − 0.931 | − 1.652, − 0.211 | 0.012 | − 0.655 | − 1.230, − 0.081 | 0.026 | − 0.815 | − 1.370, − 0.260 | 0.004 | ||
| 3 | − 0.690 | − 1.050, − 0.330 | < 0.001 | 6.6 | − 0.592 | − 1.048, − 0.136 | 0.011 | − 0.815 | − 1.090, − 0.535 | < 0.001 | 11.6 | − 0.830 | − 1.158, − 0.500 | < 0.001 |
| Time to immersion (days) | − 0.006 | − 0.037, 0.024 | 0.694 | 0.1 | – | – | – | − 0.024 | − 0.046, − 0.001 | 0.039 | 2.3 | – | – | – |
| Time iodinated (days) | 0.036 | − 0.040, 0.111 | 0.357 | 0.5 | – | – | – | 0.038 | − 0.018, 0.094 | 0.186 | 0.9 | – | – | – |
| Kilovoltage (per 100) | − 0.095 | − 1.210, 1.020 | 0.867 | 0.0 | – | – | – | 0.373 | − 0.516, 1.260 | 0.410 | 0.3 | – | – | – |
| Current (100 µA) | 0.060 | − 0.295, 0.415 | 0.740 | 0.0 | – | – | – | − 0.170 | − 0.463, 0.123 | 0.254 | 0.5 | – | – | – |
| Power (10 W) | 0.054 | − 0.273, 0.381 | 0.744 | 0.0 | – | – | – | − 0.099 | − 0.367, 0.169 | 0.469 | 0.2 | − 0.289 | − 0.548, − 0.029 | 0.029 |
| Projections (100 s) | 0.095 | 0.065, 0.126 | < 0.001 | 12.8 | 0.102 | 0.070, 0.134 | < 0.001 | 0.060 | 0.031, 0.088 | < 0.001 | 6.0 | 0.044 | 0.015, 0.072 | 0.002 |
| EPS (100 microns) | − 2.150 | − 3.310, − 0.982 | < 0.001 | 4.9 | – | – | – | − 1.650 | − 2.590, − 0.701 | < 0.001 | 4.4 | – | – | – |
| Exposure time (100 ms) | 0.048 | − 0.075, 0.170 | 0.445 | 0.2 | – | – | – | 0.071 | − 0.027, 0.168 | 0.153 | 0.8 | 0.074 | − 0.022, 0.170 | 0.132 |
Frames per projection (ref = 1) | ||||||||||||||
| 2 | 0.332 | − 0.041, 0.706 | 0.081 | – | – | – | 0.600 | 0.291, 0.909 | < 0.001 | 0.639 | 0.341, 0.937 | < 0.001 | ||
| 4 | − 0.093 | − 1.210, 1.020 | 0.869 | 1.3 | – | – | – | − 0.453 | − 1.270, 0.360 | 0.273 | 7.3 | 0.178 | − 0.566, 0.921 | 0.638 |
| W | 0.165 | − 0.383, 0.713 | 0.554 | 0.1 | – | – | – | 0.447 | 0.015, 0.879 | 0.043 | 1.6 | 0.358 | − 0.058, 0.774 | 0.091 |
Table 2 Simple and multivariable linear regression. Maceration was the main predictor of image quality, with poorer overall image quality at higher maceration scores. Higher gestational weight was also negatively associated with image quality in the adjusted models. Time to immersion was also negatively associated with image quality for chest images. The number of projections was the main imaging parameter associated with higher image quality scores
OR: Odds ratio, CI: confidence interval