Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2024 Apr 29;32(3):459–478. doi: 10.1016/j.mric.2024.03.004

Advances in Fetal Brain Imaging

Camilo Calixto 1,2, Athena Taymourtash 3, Davood Karimi 4,5, Haykel Snoussi 6,7, Clemente Velasco-Annis 8,9, Camilo Jaimes 10,11, Ali Gholipour 12,13
PMCID: PMC11216711  NIHMSID: NIHMS1978939  PMID: 38944434

INTRODUCTION

Sonography has been widely used to assess fetal growth and identify fetal anomalies 1, and although fetal neuro sonography can analyze brain surface anatomy and maturation2, it has limitations in measuring small brain substructures and outlining the transient fetal brain compartments. Conversely, fetal MRI offers better soft tissue contrast than prenatal ultrasound and can visualize both hemispheres with great detail without being disrupted by artifacts such as acoustic shadowing that frequently affect fetal ultrasound, especially at higher gestational ages. Therefore, fetal MRI is a valuable tool for confirming or excluding suspected abnormalities detected by ultrasound, thus optimizing perinatal management and influencing pregnancy outcomes 3.

Fetal brain MRI has proven to be a valuable tool for accurately assessing brain development in utero. With superior soft tissue contrast in T2-weighted images, fetal MRI enables accurate measurement of the shape and size of various brain structures 4, which can be useful in studying a broad range of congenital brain disorders 58. Super-resolution image reconstruction methods can reconstruct volumetric images of the fetal brain from stacks of MRI slice acquisitions. Continuous progress in fast image acquisition techniques 9 and super-resolution methods 1012 has improved the quality and success rate of 3D fetal brain reconstruction. The adoption of these techniques has allowed imaging scientists to perform complex computational analyses and make substantive contributions to fetal neuroscience.

Currently, in clinical practice, healthcare professionals visualize individual slices of a stack of images. Therefore, sequences are often repeated multiple times in axial, coronal, and sagittal planes to account for intermittent fetal movements and ensure sufficient diagnostic-quality images 13,14. Typically, most of the slices obtained are useful for evaluation; however, in cases where there is significant fetal movement or oblique acquisitions, some slices might need to be skipped. Acquiring stacks of slices in standard orthogonal planes is clinically relevant in assessing various conditions, including dysgenesis of the corpus callosum, malformations of the cortical plate, focal cortical dysplasia, ventriculomegaly, parenchymal injury, periventricular nodular heterotopia, cerebellar dysplasia and posterior fossa abnormalities 15.

Advanced MRI techniques such as diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), MR spectroscopy (MRS), and functional MRI (fMRI) also have a growing footprint in fetal imaging, providing quantitative information about water motion, tissue microstructure, metabolites involved in brain maturation, and functional connectivity. Recent advancements in all these modalities have opened the possibility of conducting large population studies to increase our understanding of brain development and disorders during this critical stage.

STRUCTURAL IMAGING: SINGLE-SHOT T2-WEIGHTED IMAGING

T2-weighted (T2w) imaging is the most commonly used and widely accepted MRI contrast mechanism for visualizing the anatomy of the developing fetal brain 13,14,16,17. T2-weighting provides excellent differentiation between various developing structures of the fetal brain, such as the germinal matrix and the transient compartments (Figure 1), as well as the cortical plate, developing white matter, and basal ganglia 1820. Among the various MRI sampling and spatial encoding techniques that may be used to achieve T2w imaging, single-shot fast spin echo sequence has become widely accepted as the standard for fetal structural imaging 21. We will refer to this imaging technique as SST2w in this article. This sequence is popular in fetal MRI due to its excellent T2W contrast and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), high spatial resolution without geometric distortions, and, most importantly, its relative immunity to fetal motion compared to other techniques 9,13,14. This sequence is employed to measure structures, asses the anatomy, and identify significant, gross, or local abnormalities or pathologies 2225

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Structural image of a 20-week fetus shows different zones, including ganglionic eminence (red), ventricular + subventricular zones (green), intermediate zone (magenta), subplate (blue), and cortical plate (yellow) on T2-weighted (T2w) imaging.

Motion Correction and Image Reconstruction

In fetal imaging, 3D acquisitions allow quantitative evaluation of the cortical plate, assessment of the transient brain zones, and cortical folding, and also allow for automated segmentation. However, fetal motion can cause disruptions in the spatial encoding necessary for 3D image acquisition. Even with multichannel body and spine coils on 3T scanners (achieving a slice thickness of 1.5–2 mm), the acquired SST2w images are often severely disrupted by inter-slice motion, lacking coherent 3D boundaries. Thick slice acquisitions and inter-slice motion artifacts make it difficult to assess the small structures of the fetal brain in 3D.

Over the last 15 years, the imaging research community has demonstrated the feasibility of retrospectively processing clinically acquired, repeated SST2w scans to correct for inter-slice fetal motion and reconstruct 3D images of the fetal brain. The pioneers of these efforts 26,27(p206) utilized iterations of volume-to-slice registration for inter-slice motion correction and scattered data interpolation to reconstruct one 3D image from a collection of SST2w slices. In 2010, the problem was reformulated to incorporate the physics of MRI slice acquisition as a forward model, leading to the introduction of robust super-resolution volume reconstruction using its inverse solution 12. Subsequent works have shown the impact of slice outlier removal and point-spread function modeling on super-resolution slice-to-volume reconstruction (SVR) 28, with Deprez and colleagues’ research culminating in the development of SVRTK 29,30, a robust toolbox that includes options for various sequences and applications as well as additions such as deformable slice-to-volume reconstruction.

In recent years, there have been significant advancements in the tools and algorithms used for SVR. Noteworthy developments in this field include fast SVR through optimized C++ and CUDA implementations 31, patch-to-volume reconstruction (PVR) 32, and NiftyMIC 10. The latter is a fully automated pipeline and toolkit for fetal MRI SVR, which detects and segments the fetal brain on fetal MRI scans and reconstructs a volume in the standard fetal atlas space 18. NiftyMIC offers a range of options to ensure optimal results, even when working with clinical SST2w data that may be of limited quality.

Recently, innovative deep learning strategies, such as AFFIRM33, SVORT34, and NeSVOR35, have been developed by several groups to achieve inter-slice fetal MRI motion correction and volume reconstruction. With the advancements in SVR, successful high-quality 3D image reconstruction is highly likely even in the presence of significant fetal motion, given that enough good-quality SST2w images of the fetal brain are acquired (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Depiction of the T2-weighted (T2w) structural image processing pipeline, which utilizes several T2w images captured from various orthogonal views. A motion-correction superresolution reconstruction technique is then utilized to generate an isotropic T2w image. The resulting image undergoes brain extraction and registration with a preexisting image from a fetal brain atlas that corresponds to the same age, to bring it into a standard space. Finally, the image is automatically segmented for further analysis.

Developing Fetal Brain Structural Atlases

Thanks to SVR techniques, 3D images of the fetal brain have been reconstructed, allowing for the creation of population atlases from in-vivo scans of normally developing fetuses. To account for the rapid growth and changes in the fetal brain during gestation, four-dimensional (spatiotemporal) atlases have been proposed to represent the normal structure and development of the fetal brain18,36,37 (Figure 3). One such atlas includes detailed tissue segmentation and structural parcellations of the brain into 125 regions at every gestational week between 21 and 37 weeks18. This atlas, known as the CRL (Computational Radiology Lab) fetal brain MRI atlas, has been widely used in studies on fetal brain development, including automatic fetal brain localization, segmentation, and volumetric analysis on MRI 10,38,39, quantitative fetal brain analysis 19,40,41, and connectivity analysis 4244.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Depiction of the available Fetal Brain T2 atlases at seven different gestational ages (GA). Namely the Computational Radiology Lab (CRL) Fetal Atlas (available at http://crl.med.harvard.edu/research/fetal_brain_atlas/), Chinese Fetal Atlas (available at https://github.com/DeepBMI/FBA-Chinese) and the King’s College London Fetal Atlas (available at https://gin.g-node.org/kcl_cdb/fetal_brain_mri_atlas). The first two rows of each panel represent the coronal and axial views, while the third and fourth rows depict tissue segmentations and cortical parcellations (only available for the CRL atlas), respectively.

Newer works on fetal brain T2w MRI atlas construction and segmentation have also yielded promising results. New spatiotemporal atlases 45,46 have demonstrated compatibility with the CRL atlas despite being built through different image reconstructions and atlas construction frameworks from different populations. These atlases and the CRL atlas have been supplemented with aligned diffusion tensor MRI atlases 47,48. Most recently, a multi-contrast spatiotemporal MRI atlas of fetal brain development was released based on fetal MRI data from the developing Human Connectome Project (dHCP) (http://www.developingconnectome.org).

Automatic Segmentation of Fetal Brain Tissue

As more 3D fetal brain MRIs are being reconstructed, there is a growing need for computerized methods that can analyze them quickly, accurately, and reliably. Automatic processing can significantly improve the speed and reproducibility of the results, and automatic segmentation of fetal brain tissue types is particularly valuable for assessing normal and abnormal developmental trajectories. Prior to the development of deep learning-based segmentation methods, classical machine learning methods such as support vector machines and random forests were applied to hand-crafted image features to segment the brain tissue 49,50. However, recent works have shown that deep learning methods can produce consistently more accurate results 51. A survey of automatic fetal and neonatal brain segmentation techniques in MRI can be found in the manuscript authored by Makropoulos et al. 52

Compared with the adult brain, tissue segmentation for the fetal brain is more challenging because of inherently lower image quality and rapid brain development. Despite these obstacles, several studies have focused on the segmentation of specific structures. Dou et al. used manual segmentations to train and validate a deep, attentive, fully convolutional network (FCN) 53 for the cortical gray matter. Due to the complex topology of the cortex, another study proposed integrating topological constraints into the training loss function 54. Meanwhile, Fidon et al. utilized the nnU-Net framework to segment the white matter, ventricles, and cerebellum 55. Payette et al. developed a dataset of fetal brain MRI images with labels for seven tissue types 56 using 2D UNet. A succession of two FCNs was proposed by Khalili et al. 57, with the first FCN extracting the intracranial volume and the second segmenting the brain tissue into seven compartments.

Fetal brain MRI data poses a persistent challenge in obtaining reliable ground truth segmentations for large training datasets. Various methods have been proposed to tackle this issue. One approach involved using an automatic method initially designed for neonatal brains to generate noisy cortical plate segmentations on fetal brain images 58. The researchers then refined these segmentations using a human-in-the-loop technique on selected image slices and trained a fully convolutional network with the refined annotations. Another study proposed a unified deep learning framework to estimate a conditional atlas and predict a segmentation jointly 59, which aimed to reduce the impacts of motion artifacts and partial volume effects. The rationale for this approach is that the prior knowledge provided by the atlas can guide the segmentation where image quality is low. Karimi et al. proposed a spatially variable label smoothing method to account for uncertain segmentations produced by a multi-atlas segmentation method 60.

Significant progress has been made in the field of automatic fetal brain tissue segmentation, with recent developments achieving very high levels of accuracy compared to manual segmentation 60,61. These advances have been driven by deep learning. However, challenges related to label noise and data scarcity persist, and extensive research has suggested that FCN-type methods “have reached a plateau” 62. Encouragingly, new transformers-based models show promise in enhancing performance, as demonstrated in recent preliminary studies 63.

Analysis of Brain Folding and Normal Development Using Structural Imaging

Initial in-utero imaging studies 6467 characterized the growth patterns of fetal zones and regional volumes. However, these reports had limitations that prevented simultaneous and automated 3D measurement of multiple zones in a single brain. The first studies to conduct 3D volumetric analysis of the fetal brain using MRI scans were by Scott et al. 68 and Andescavage et al. 69. Scott et al. found that the supratentorial volume, subplate + intermediate zone, and deep subcortical structures increased linearly with gestational age at a similar rate, while cortical gray matter increased at a greater relative rate and ventricles changed more slowly. Andescavage and colleagues found that the most pronounced changes were seen in the cerebellum, followed by the white matter, cortical gray matter, and deep subcortical structures. In early gestation, all tissue types except the white matter were found to have larger volumes in the left hemisphere, which were then equalized by term. A recent report by Machado-Rivas et al. evaluated age-related volumetric changes in various brain structures and revealed hemispheric asymmetries and sex-related differences, providing valuable insights into fetal brain development 19.

Furthermore, one of the most remarkable developmental changes in the fetal brain during gestation is the folding of the cortex, also known as gyrification. From approximately 25 weeks, the neocortex rapidly becomes more convoluted, resulting in a significant increase in surface area without a corresponding increase in thickness. Measurements of folding that indicate the degree of gyrification have shown a strong positive correlation with GA, indicating that these measurements are a valuable tool for quantifying cortical folding and neurological development. Furthermore, the link between these folding measurements and GA is stronger than the link between GA and volume 70, indicating that neural development is more closely tied to cortical complexity than brain size in this age range.

Similar to what has been seen on direct inspection 71, studies utilizing 3D reconstructed fetal MR imaging have revealed that at 22 weeks, the brain surface is initially smooth, with the Sylvian fissure being present as a shallow depression. The primary sulci, such as the central sulcus, emerge first around 24–25 weeks, followed by increasing lobar gyrification around 30 weeks. By 34 weeks gestational age, all of the primary and a majority of the secondary sulci are present 72.

DIFFUSION IMAGING: ECHO PLANAR IMAGING

Fetal diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) provides unparalleled insights into the developing brain. This imaging technique is pivotal in assessing neural connectivity 73 and microstructural changes during gestation 74,75, a crucial aspect for understanding and potentially intervening in neurodevelopmental disorders. By non-invasively probing the movement of water molecules in the fetal brain, dMRI provides critical data on a variety of microscopic processes that occur during the most dynamic period of human brain development. These data offer a unique opportunity to link these processes to long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Despite its potential, fetal dMRI faces unique challenges, primarily stemming from the dynamic prenatal environment. Factors like maternal breathing, fetal movement, small fetal head, and limitations of MRI technology, such as geometric distortions in echo planar imaging (EPI), signal-to-noise ratio issues, and spin history artifacts from prolonged relaxation times of water-rich fetal brain tissues, pose significant obstacles 76,77. These challenges cause misalignment in dMRI sequences and can disrupt the assumption of a consistent relationship between image space and anatomy 78.

Motion correction of Diffusion Imaging

To overcome the challenges mentioned above in fetal dMRI and enable further data analysis, a variety of fetal-specific motion correction and reconstruction techniques have been developed. Due to the unpredictable nature of fetal and maternal motion, prospective motion correction can be challenging 79,80. Thus, retrospective motion correction methods emerged as a practical solution for producing reliable dMRI data for further analysis.

The first motion correction methods for fetal dMRI were introduced by Jiang et al., who extended the slice-to-volume registration techniques initially developed for in-utero structural MRI 81. This technique addressed contrast variation in dMRI slices that resulted from varying sensitization gradients. The method assumed that a rank-2 tensor model could represent local diffusion properties and register each slice to the simulated volume. This resulted in scattered slices in both spatial and angular domains, as each slice’s sensitizing gradient must be rotated according to the motion parameters. The realigned slices were integrated into a regular grid using a diffusion tensor matrix reconstruction to create the final reconstructed volume. The main drawback of this method was the inability of the tensor model to describe voxels containing crossing fibers, a condition found in many voxels.

Following this, Oubel et al. 82 proposed a groupwise registration method, which involved collectively aligning diffusion-weighted images followed by using a derived image to register to the T2-weighted reference image. Using affine transformation matrices allowed for the compensation of motion and eddy-current effects in the original sequences. Next, a dual radial basis function-based interpolation was employed to reconstruct a consistent volume on regular grids from the realigned slices that are scattered in the spatial and gradient domains. Fogtmann et al. then introduced a super-resolution reconstruction method of the diffusion tensors that shared some features with Scherrer et al. work 83 but also had some important differences 84. One major innovation was adopting a unified alignment approach that resulted in a diffusion-sensitive slice registration model. Furthermore, they incorporated point spread function deconvolution into the 3D image reconstruction process, which enabled the creation of isotropic 3D datasets from scattered DWI acquisitions in various anatomical planes.

Marami et al. proposed motion correction and reconstruction by tracking temporal head movements using filtered image registration. This method assumed a dynamic model for fetal motion and utilized a Kalman filtering approach in combination with slice-to-volume registration to estimate motion parameters. Moreover, they reconstructed diffusion tensors using a weighted least square fit, accounting for the shape of the point-spread function. Outlier slices were identified using a morphological closing filter operator and a support vector machine classifier. This technique notably played a significant role in developing the first spatio-temporal diffusion tensor fetal atlas 48 (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Depiction of the diffusion-weighted image (DWI) processing pipeline on a 33-week fetus. For each DWI scan, a single b=0 image and multiple b≠0 images (depending on the number of directions) are acquired. All non-diffusion-sensitive images (b=0) from multiple scans are merged using a superresolution approach, as are the b≠0 images. Then, the images are brain extracted, and a tensor model is fitted. The resulting image is registered with a preexisting image from a fetal brain atlas that corresponds to the same age to bring it into a standard space. Afterward, the images are brain extracted, and a tensor model is applied. To standardize the results, the image is registered with a preexisting image from a fetal brain atlas that corresponds to the same age. Finally, the image can be automatically segmented for further analysis, and the tensor image can be utilized for tractography.

A significant advancement in the field has been proposed by Derpez et al. They have introduced a higher-order reconstruction method that combines motion correction with super-resolution reconstruction using spherical harmonics 76. This approach has proven to be particularly effective in identifying crossing fibers in the fetal brain. Furthermore, building upon their previous work 28, an additional improvement is the integration of intensity correction within the reconstruction process.

Developing Fetal Brain Diffusion Atlases

Similar to T2w imaging of the fetal brain, advances in fetal diffusion imaging have enabled the creation of population atlases from in-vivo scans of normally developing fetuses. To account for the rapid growth and changes in the fetal brain during gestation, four-dimensional (spatiotemporal) atlases have been proposed to represent the normal structure and development of the fetal brain47,48,85 (Figure 5). The first such atlas, available since 2019, covers every gestational week between 21 and 37 weeks. This atlas, called the CRL fetal brain dMRI atlas, has been widely used in studies on fetal brain development, including microstructural analysis 74,86 and connectivity analysis 75. Recently, Calixto et al. introduced a label set for this atlas, including segmentations for 24 structures 86. Another more recent atlas is the Chinese fetal brain dMRI atlas, which covers gestational weeks 24 to 38 and was created using 3D reconstructed images of 89 normally developing fetuses scanned between 24 and 38 weeks of gestation 47. This atlas proposed using a fiber orientation distribution (FOD) based pipeline for generating fetal brain dMRI atlases, which showed better registration accuracy than a diffusion tensor pipeline.

Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Depiction of the available Fetal Brain diffusion MRI (dMRI) atlases at seven different gestational ages (GA). Namely the Computational Radiology Lab (CRL) Fetal Atlas (available at http://crl.med.harvard.edu/research/fetal_brain_atlas/), Chinese Fetal Atlas (available at https://github.com/RuikeChen/Fetal-Brain-dMRI-Atlas) and the King’s College London Fetal Atlas (available at https://gin.g-node.org/kcl_cdb/fetal_brain_mri_atlas). The top row in each panel shows the fractional anisotropy map, followed by the mean diffusivity map in the second row. The third row displays the tissue segmentations (only available for the CRL and KCL atlases), and the cortical parcellations (only available for the CRL atlas) are shown in the bottom row.

Analysis of Brain Microstructure Using Diffusion Imaging

The potential of diffusion imaging to explore the microstructure of the brain stems from the fact that the diffusion of water molecules changes according to the tissue’s architecture. Key metrics parameters such as FA and MD provide quantitative insights into the density and coherence of neural tracts, as well as the rate of water diffusion.

Several studies have provided insights into the changes in the microstructure of the fetal brain during development. Notably, during the second and early third trimesters, the telencephalic wall is organized into concentric zones, including the marginal zone (not visible on MRI), the cortical plate, the subplate, the intermediate zone, and the proliferative compartments (subventricular zone, ventricular zone, ganglionic eminence). Studies have shown variations in anisotropy and diffusivity in the fetal transient zones during this period that follow different trends 8789.

A major limitation of these study types is the need for tissue labels to extract tissue-specific microstructural information. While segmentation algorithms have become available for structural data based on T2-weighted super-resolution reconstructions, they cannot be used for DTI sequences due to differences in tissue contrast and distortions 75. For example, motion between DWI and T2-weighted structural acquisitions can cause geometric distortions due to susceptibility-induced B1 field inhomogeneities in echo-planar imaging, ultimately reducing the accuracy of T2 to DWI registration 90. To address this issue, 48Calixto and colleagues propose a pipeline for automatic segmentation of fetal brain 47, using tensor-based registration 91 with probabilistic label fusion 92. With this approach, Calixto et al. investigated microstructural changes in a healthy cohort of fetal brains during the late second and third trimesters using in vivo motion-corrected diffusion MRI. Their findings are consistent with those of preterm and postmortem studies and are closely linked to cytoarchitectonic changes.

Fetal Brain Tractography

Aside from assessing the tissue microstructure, dMRI has two exciting applications: tract-specific analysis and measuring the brain’s structural connectivity, both enabled by streamlined tractography 73. Classically, the orientation of fibers in tractography has been determined using the diffusion tensor model. However, newer approaches implement diffusion orientation distribution functions (ODFs) and fiber orientation distributions (FODs). The tensor model can only resolve one fiber orientation per voxel, whereas the diffusion ODF can recognize fibers crossing at angles between 45 and 90 degrees 93. FOD tractography outperforms DTI and diffusion ODF methods with its superior resolving power, making it ideal for delineating fibers crossing at a sharp angle. For estimating FODs, Constrained Spherical Deconvolution (CSD) is used, which requires high angular resolution diffusion imaging (HARDI) that has at least one non-zero b-value, generally in the range of 2,500 – 3,000 s/mm2 94.

However, obtaining diffusion data with b values higher than 1000 in fetuses is challenging due to several factors. High b values increase the sensitivity to diffusion but also increase the sensitivity to physiological noise, such as cardiac and respiratory motion. This is particularly relevant in fetal imaging, where the fetus is constantly moving, and the mother’s breathing and cardiac motion can also affect the imaging. Additionally, high b values can lead to a decrease in signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). As the b value increases, the signal intensity decreases, making it difficult to obtain clear images, especially in small structures like the fetal brain. Lastly, using high b values can increase scan time, increasing the likelihood of motion artifacts. Recently, Kebiri et al. have leveraged deep learning and trained a neural network to map dMRI data directly, acquired with as low as six diffusion directions, to FODs for fetuses 95.

Tractography has proven to be an effective tool for estimating major white matter bundles and assessing developmental changes in microstructure during the latter half of gestation 48,96102. Fetal brain tractography has been employed to depict the radial migration of neurons to the insular cortex 40, the fetal visual pathway 103, and the maturation of thalamocortical pathways 104. Moreover, tractography can reveal the occurrence of plastic events leading to the formation of aberrant tracts in the brain, such as in cases of corpus callosum agenesis 105. Recently, Calixto et al. have developed a new technique for anatomically constrained tractography106. This method is based on accurate deep learning-based segmentations of the fetal brain tissue directly in the dMRI space. Their approach also involves computing the diffusion orientation distribution function (dODF) from the diffusion tensor, followed by a sharpening step to reduce the incidence of spurious streamlines often encountered with traditional tractography techniques due to low diffusion anisotropy in fetal white matter (Figure 6 shows a depiction of major brain tracts generated using the technique proposed by Calixto et al.)

Figure 6.

Figure 6.

Depiction of five major brain tracts on two subjects at different gestational ages (GA). The following tracts are shown: Cortico- Spinal Tract (CST), Forcep Minor (FMajor), Forcep Minor (FMinor), Inferior Occipito- Frontal fascicle (IFO), and Inferior Longitudinal Fascicle (ILF).

To determine the strength of the structural connection between a predefined set of brain regions, each streamline is weighted by some measure of tissue microstructure. In the second and third trimesters of pregnancy, the fetal brain networks become stronger and more efficient, with a significant increase in global integration and local segregation 75. Additionally, the existence of small-world network organizations has been observed as early as 20 weeks. Interestingly, this network reconfiguration occurs more rapidly between 20–35 weeks than between 35–40 weeks and is associated with a notable increase in major long-association white matter fibers 107.

FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

fMRI is a non-invasive method for investigating brain activity. It measures changes in blood flow and oxygenation in specific brain regions, indicating local neural activity. There are two types of fMRI: resting-state fMRI and task-based fMRI. Unlike task-based fMRI, resting-state fMRI (rs-fMRI) is obtained while the subject is at rest and not performing any activity 108. This allows for studying functional brain networks during resting states without requiring active participation from the subject, making it an ideal tool for investigating functional fetal brain development in utero.

Development of Functional Connectivity

Studies using resting-state fMRI have uncovered the presence of primitive functional networks in the fetal brain, including motor, visual, and auditory networks, which can be detected as early as mid-gestation 109. As gestational age increases, functional connections (FC) between and within hemispheres develop, following a medial-to-lateral 110,111 and posterior-to-anterior 17 maturational sequence. Notably, more evidence has emerged on the evolving functional networks 112 and their association with subcortical structures like the thalamus 44, which is crucial for the early stages of the brain’s functional specialization (Figure 7).

Figure 7.

Figure 7.

(A) shows the percentage of significant functional connections (P<0.05, FDR corrected) in three different age groups of healthy fetuses. The histogram in (B) displays the normalized anatomical distance associated with the significant connections for each age group. Finally, (C) is a chord diagram of significant connections (P<0.05, FDR corrected) in each age group. The parcellation scheme and the associated colormap are based on the CRL atlas of the fetal brain.

Using graph-based inferences, researchers have found that the fetal functional connectome has a small-world, modular, and rich club architecture, which becomes more efficient and less modular during gestation 110,113115, reflecting the formation of new brain connections. As the neural system undergoes pruning and refinement, more specialized and segregated networks emerge in infants and early childhood 116,117. Moreover, significant functional asymmetry has been observed in the inferior temporal gyrus, which likely plays a role in the development of the language system before birth 44,118. Additionally, sexual dimorphism has been identified in FC-age associations 119 and connection patterns involved in the somatomotor and frontal areas, as well as the hippocampus, cerebellum, and basal ganglia 43.

Building on the understanding of these developmental patterns, recent studies have shifted focus to exploring the predictive value of FC measures by linking in-utero FC to behavior and birth outcomes in a longitudinal design120,121. For instance, increased connectivity between the emerging motor network and regions that support motor function, particularly prefrontal regions, the posterior cingulate, and supplementary motor regions, has been shown to predict the subsequent infant motor ability at certain ages120,122.

Compared to age-matched healthy fetuses, premature infants have been found to display altered FC patterns 123,124, with stronger connectivity in sensory input and stress-related areas 111. Additionally, prenatal exposure to adversity such as maternal stress 125127, depression 128, elevated body mass index 129, and teratogens like lead 130 and alcohol 131 have also been linked to aberrant FC.

Motion Correction and Postprocessing

The reliability of FC estimates in fetal fMRI can be hindered due to a variety of factors. These include irregular fetal motion, limited signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) caused by physiological noises from maternal tissues and placenta, as well as low temporal and spatial resolutions. The developing brain’s rapid conformational changes introduce even more variability, such as smaller head sizes in younger fetuses, which may bias FC towards stronger short-range connections 17. Additionally, fetal motion often leads to intensity inhomogeneities and spin-history artifacts 132. These factors collectively contribute to the complexity of obtaining robust and consistent FC estimates, requiring advanced image processing techniques specifically tailored to fetal fMRI data’s unique characteristics.

Recent advancements in fetal fMRI processing leverage deep learning models based on 2D U-Net 29, 3D U-Net 133, and the attention U-Net 134. These models automate the brain extraction from motion-corrupted fMRI images, greatly reducing processing time and forming the foundation for the entire processing pipeline (Figure 8). Spin-history artifacts have also been addressed by estimating low-frequency multiplicative fields on a slice-wise basis and imposing smoothness, either parametrically through a linear combination of basis functions 135 or non-parametrically through a smoothness penalty 136. Additionally, a range of techniques, including a weighted registration algorithm based on 2nd-order edge features 137, latent state modeling of motion via Markov assumption 138, and super-resolution reconstruction 139,140, have been proposed to mitigate fetal excessive motion and improve the quality of fMRI images. Despite these advances, challenges remain, highlighting the need for robust and reproducible approaches 141 to ensure optimal acquisition and accurate analysis of the fetal functional connectome.

Figure 8.

Figure 8.

Example of the estimated framewise realignment parameters, including translation and rotation along each dimension, for a 34-week fetus.

MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY

Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) is a specialized MRI technique used to measure concentrations of brain metabolites 142. It has been used to measure changes in metabolites such as N-acetylaspartate (NAA), choline (Cho), creatine (Cr), myo-inositol (Ins), lactate (Lac), and glutamate (Glu) in the developing brain of a fetus 143147. However, due to the significantly lower concentration of these metabolites in the brain compared to water and fat molecules (about four orders), MRS requires techniques quite different from most other MRI techniques. In the simplest approach, called single voxel MRS, three orthogonal slice selective pulses define a relatively large voxel region (typically, 1–1.5 cm3), where the water signal is suppressed, and metabolic information is extracted. The peak signals of various metabolites appear at specific frequencies, or ppm values, related to those metabolites on a proton spectrum (Figure 9).

Figure 9.

Figure 9.

Example of a Long Echo Time (270 ms) Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (MRS) using the single-voxel technique of a 19-week fetus with a mitochondrial disorder. The white arrow shows lactate elevation.

Two commonly used techniques for single-voxel MRS are stimulated echo acquisition mode (STEAM) and point-resolved spectroscopy (PRESS). STEAM uses three slice selective 90° pulses 148, while PRESS uses a slice selective 90° pulse and two orthogonal slice selective 180° refocusing pulses 149. Generally, STEAM is preferred for short echo times (20–30ms) due to its ability to provide richer metabolic content information, while PRESS is preferred for longer echo times (~135ms) for its more reproducible spectra 150. With typical repletion times of 1.5–2.5 seconds and signal averages of 20–30, the total acquisition time for a single-voxel MRS is around one minute. Additional time is required before signal acquisition for adjustments and shimming.

Several studies have utilized single voxel MRS to evaluate brain metabolite levels in live fetuses in utero. However, it is much more challenging to perform than structural fetal MRI. The accuracy and reliability of fetal MRS is hard to determine, but feasibility studies have reported 50–68% of cases as “useable” or “readable” without sedation 143,151,152. However, these estimations may be optimistic as some studies excluded cases with detected gross motion. In general, performing MRS in younger fetuses and fetuses with the head in non-cephalic positions is challenging.

Performing fetal magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) poses several challenges due to the small size of the fetal brain and its structures compared to the relatively large MRS voxel sizes, as well as fetal motion. Large voxels are necessary to achieve a reasonable signal-to-noise ratio, and these often cover a large area of the developing brain, including cortical plate, deep brain nuclei, white matter, and cerebrospinal fluid in the lateral ventricles. There are inevitable delays between the scans used as a reference for MRS voxel placement and the actual measurement of MRS signal. These can include operator delays in voxel placement, position refinement (~1 minute), lead time for MRS frequency and shim adjustments, and measurements for water and fat suppression (~1–2 minutes). During this time, fetal motion can occur, which can shift the prescribed voxel area partially or entirely outside of the fetal brain. Additionally, fetal motion during the acquisition may also happen, leading to lower signal quality.

Clinical Application

Changes in brain metabolites may precede and predict functional and structural changes in the brain. Detecting and estimating the levels of certain metabolites, such as lactate and glutamate, during the early stages of fetal development could prove beneficial in assessing and understanding brain development in fetuses at risk of neurodevelopmental disorders such as fetuses at risk of hypoxia and ischemia. Deviation from typical brain metabolite levels throughout gestation may offer insight into the extent of neuronal damage in fetuses that have suffered from brain injury.

During gestation, brain metabolites change as the fetal brain matures and axons myelinate. As gestational age advances, NAA, Cr, and Cho have been shown to gradually increase due to myelination in the third trimester 144,146,153. On the contrary, fetuses with gastroschisis and intra-uterine growth restriction (IUGR) have been reported to have elevated levels of Lac 154,155, while fetuses with congenital heart disease (CHD) have relatively high levels of Cho and low NAA:Cho ratios compared to healthy fetuses scanned in the third trimester 156. These findings are consistent with previous studies in neonates with CHD, which reported decreased NAA:Cho ratios and increased Lac and Lac:Cho ratios in newborns with CHD compared to healthy controls 157. Fetuses with transposition of the great arteries (TGA) and single ventricle (SV) heart defects have also been found to have increased levels of Lac compared to fetuses with normal physiology. These elevated Lac levels have been significantly associated with death before discharge in the TGA and SV subgroups of CHD.

SUMMARY

This review summarizes the progress made in fetal brain MRI imaging, which has significantly enhanced our ability to image and assess the developing fetal brain and has led to an improved understanding of fetal brain development. Over the past two decades, these advancements have enabled a thorough assessment of fetal brain development, from structural imaging that allows for assessing cortical folding and changes in volume to diffusion imaging to assess microstructural changes throughout gestation and even changes in tract configurations. Although there is still much work to be done, including developing better technologies for MRI spectroscopy, we can expect future research to significantly enhance all fetal imaging techniques, incorporate them into clinical workflows, and offer a deeper understanding of the early stages of human brain development.

CLINICS CARE POINTS

  • SST2w is widely used for its superior contrast, signal-to-noise ratios, and ability to resist fetal motion. It allows for detailed structural evaluation of the fetal brain, including detecting abnormalities and assessing cortical folding and changes throughout gestation.

  • Diffusion MRI is particularly useful for examining fetal brain development and changes in brain microstructure. Progress in motion correction and image reconstruction techniques has made it possible to assess these changes throughout gestation.

  • fMRI is a non-invasive technique that measures blood flow and oxygenation changes in specific brain regions, reflecting local neural activity. Resting-state fMRI is especially valuable for studying the fetal brain as it does not require active participation. It is vital for understanding the development and specialization of brain functional networks in utero.

  • Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy is instrumental in measuring concentrations of various brain metabolites in the developing fetal brain. It offers critical insights into the biochemical environment of the fetal brain, aiding in the understanding of its development and early detection of potential neurodevelopmental issues.

Key Points:

  1. Advancements in image processing, including motion correction, automatic segmentation, and the development of fetal brain atlases in different MRI techniques (including structural imaging, diffusion imaging, and functional MRI ), have greatly enhanced our ability to image the structure and function of the developing fetal brain in-utero.

  2. T2-weighted (T2w) imaging, precisely the single-shot fast spin echo sequence (SST2w), is highly regarded for its excellent contrast and signal-to-noise ratios, relatively high spatial resolution, and ability to withstand fetal motion. SST2w is predominantly employed for structural evaluation and detecting abnormalities in the developing brain. Thanks to advancements in motion correction and 3D image reconstruction, cortical folding and normal volume changes can now be assessed throughout gestation.

  3. Fetal diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) is essential for examining fetal brain development. Advancements in motion correction and image reconstruction techniques have enabled the assessment of changes in brain microstructure and white matter architecture (tractography) throughout gestation.

  4. Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) is a non-invasive technique that measures changes in blood flow and oxygenation in specific brain regions, indicating local neural activity. Resting-state fMRI is particularly promising for studying the fetal brain as it does not require active participation from the subject, allowing characterization of spontaneous brain activity and functional brain networks during resting states.

  5. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) measures concentrations of various brain metabolites. MRS is instrumental in detecting changes in metabolites in the developing fetal brain. This technique offers insights into the biochemical environment of the fetal brain, complementing other established modalities, aiding in the understanding of fetal development, and potentially contributing to the early detection of neurodevelopmental disorders in fetuses.

Synopsis.

Over the last 20 years, there have been remarkable developments in fetal MRI analysis methods. This article delves into the specifics of structural imaging, diffusion imaging, functional MRI, and spectroscopy, highlighting the latest advancements in motion correction, fetal brain development atlases, and the challenges and innovations. Furthermore, the article explores the clinical applications of these advanced imaging techniques in comprehending and diagnosing fetal brain development and abnormalities.

Funding Sources:

Funding Sources: Supported in part by the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under award numbers R01EB031849, R01NS106030, R01NS121657, R01EB032366, and R01HD109395; in part by the Office of the Director of the NIH under award number S10OD025111; and, in part, by the Rosamund Stone Zander Translational Neuroscience Center, Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH). C.J. was partly supported by the American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS) scholarship and a career development award from the Office of Faculty Development at BCH. The content of this publication is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH, the ARRS, or BCH.

Abbreviation List

DTI

Diffusion Tensor Imaging

FA

Fractional Anisotropy

FC

Functional Connections

FCN

Fully Convolutional Network

FOD

Fiber Orientation Distribution

MD

Mean Diffusivity

MRI

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

MRS

Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy

ODF

Orientation Distribution Function

PRESS

Point Resolved Spectroscopy

RF

Radiofrequency

SNR

Signal-to-Noise Ratio

SST2w

Single-Shot T2-weighted Imaging

SVR

Slice-to-Volume Reconstruction

fMRI

Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging

rs-fMRI

resting-state Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Footnotes

Disclosure Statement: The Authors have nothing to disclose

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Contributor Information

Camilo Calixto, Computational Radiology Laboratory. Department of Radiology. Boston Children’s Hospital. Boston, MA; Harvard Medical School. Boston, MA.

Athena Taymourtash, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Wien, Austria.

Davood Karimi, Computational Radiology Laboratory. Department of Radiology. Boston Children’s Hospital. Boston, MA; Harvard Medical School. Boston, MA.

Haykel Snoussi, Computational Radiology Laboratory. Department of Radiology. Boston Children’s Hospital. Boston, MA; Harvard Medical School. Boston, MA.

Clemente Velasco-Annis, Computational Radiology Laboratory. Department of Radiology. Boston Children’s Hospital. Boston, MA; Harvard Medical School. Boston, MA.

Camilo Jaimes, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Harvard Medical School. Boston, MA.

Ali Gholipour, Computational Radiology Laboratory. Department of Radiology. Boston Children’s Hospital. Boston, MA; Harvard Medical School. Boston, MA.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Chang CH, Yu CH, Chang FM, Ko HC, Chen HY. The assessment of normal fetal brain volume by 3-D ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2003;29(9):1267–1272. doi: 10.1016/s0301-5629(03)00989-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Namburete AIL, Xie W, Noble JA. Robust Regression of Brain Maturation from 3D Fetal Neurosonography Using CRNs. In: Cardoso MJ, Arbel T, Melbourne A, et al. , eds. Fetal, Infant and Ophthalmic Medical Image Analysis. Vol 10554. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer International Publishing; 2017:73–80. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-67561-9_8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Masselli G, Vaccaro Notte MR, Zacharzewska-Gondek A, Laghi F, Manganaro L, Brunelli R. Fetal MRI of CNS abnormalities. Clin Radiol. 2020;75(8):640.e1–640.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2020.03.035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Corbett-Detig J, Habas P, Scott JA, et al. 3D global and regional patterns of human fetal subplate growth determined in utero. Brain Struct Funct. 2011;215(3):255–263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hosny IA, Elghawabi HS. Ultrafast MRI of the fetus: an increasingly important tool in prenatal diagnosis of congenital anomalies. Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;28(10):1431–1439. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Egaña-Ugrinovic G, Sanz-Cortes M, Figueras F, Bargalló N, Gratacós E. Differences in cortical development assessed by fetal MRI in late-onset intrauterine growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209(2):126–e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Mlczoch E, Brugger P, Ulm B, et al. Structural congenital brain disease in congenital heart disease: results from a fetal MRI program. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2013;17(2):153–160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Weisstanner C, Kasprian G, Gruber G, Brugger P, Prayer D. MRI of the Fetal Brain. Clin Neuroradiol. 2015;25(2):189–196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Yamashita Y, Namimoto T, Abe Y, et al. MR imaging of the fetus by a HASTE sequence. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;168(2):513–519. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ebner M, Wang G, Li W, et al. An automated framework for localization, segmentation and super-resolution reconstruction of fetal brain MRI. NeuroImage. 2020;206:116324. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kuklisova-Murgasova M, Aljabar P, Srinivasan L, et al. A dynamic 4D probabilistic atlas of the developing brain. NeuroImage. 2011;54(4):2750–2763. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Gholipour A, Estroff JA, Warfield SK. Robust super-resolution volume reconstruction from slice acquisitions: application to fetal brain MRI. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2010;29(10):1739–1758. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gholipour A, Estroff JA, Barnewolt CE, et al. Fetal MRI: a technical update with educational aspirations. Concepts Magn Reson Part A. 2014;43(6):237–266. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Machado-Rivas F, Cortes-Albornoz MC, Afacan O, et al. Fetal MRI at 3 T: Principles to Optimize Success. RadioGraphics. 2023;43(4):e220141. doi: 10.1148/rg.220141 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wright C, Sibley CP, Baker PN. The role of fetal magnetic resonance imaging. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2010;95(2):F137–141. doi: 10.1136/adc.2008.151076 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Brugger PC, Mittermayer C, Prayer D. A new look at the fetus: thick-slab T2-weighted sequences in fetal MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2006;57(2):182–186. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.11.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Jakab A, Schwartz E, Kasprian G, et al. Fetal functional imaging portrays heterogeneous development of emerging human brain networks. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;8:852. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00852 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gholipour A, Rollins CK, Velasco-Annis C, et al. A normative spatiotemporal MRI atlas of the fetal brain for automatic segmentation and analysis of early brain growth. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):476. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-00525-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Machado-Rivas F, Gandhi J, Choi JJ, et al. Normal Growth, Sexual Dimorphism, and Lateral Asymmetries at Fetal Brain MRI. Radiology. Published online December 21, 2021:211222. doi: 10.1148/radiol.211222 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Vasung L, Rollins CK, Yun HJ, et al. Quantitative In vivo MRI Assessment of Structural Asymmetries and Sexual Dimorphism of Transient Fetal Compartments in the Human Brain. Cereb Cortex N Y N 1991. 2020;30(3):1752–1767. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhz200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kiefer B Image acquisition in a second with half-Fourier-acquisition single-shot turbo spin echo. J Magn Reson Imag. 1994;4:86. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Garel C MRI of the Fetal Brain. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2004. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-18747-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Glenn OA, Barkovich AJ. Magnetic resonance imaging of the fetal brain and spine: an increasingly important tool in prenatal diagnosis, part 1. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27(8):1604–1611. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Glenn OA, Barkovich J. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Fetal Brain and Spine: An Increasingly Important Tool in Prenatal Diagnosis: Part 2. Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27(9):1807. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Griffiths PD, Bradburn M, Campbell MJ, et al. Use of MRI in the diagnosis of fetal brain abnormalities in utero (MERIDIAN): a multicentre, prospective cohort study. The Lancet. 2017;389(10068):538–546. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31723-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sun J wen, Zhao F ying, Wang C jun, Chen S fu. Identifying and correcting mislabeled training instances. In: Future Generation Communication and Networking (FGCN 2007). Vol 1. IEEE; 2007:244–250. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Rousseau F, Glenn OA, Iordanova B, et al. Registration-based approach for reconstruction of high-resolution in utero fetal MR brain images. Acad Radiol. 2006;13(9):1072–1081. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2006.05.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kuklisova-Murgasova M, Quaghebeur G, Rutherford MA, Hajnal JV, Schnabel JA. Reconstruction of fetal brain MRI with intensity matching and complete outlier removal. Med Image Anal. 2012;16(8):1550–1564. doi: 10.1016/j.media.2012.07.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Uus A, Zhang T, Jackson LH, et al. Deformable Slice-to-Volume Registration for Motion Correction of Fetal Body and Placenta MRI. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2020;39(9):2750–2759. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2020.2974844 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Uus AU, Egloff Collado A, Roberts TA, Hajnal JV, Rutherford MA, Deprez M. Retrospective motion correction in foetal MRI for clinical applications: existing methods, applications and integration into clinical practice. Br J Radiol. 2023;96(1147):20220071. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20220071 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kainz B, Steinberger M, Wein W, et al. Fast Volume Reconstruction From Motion Corrupted Stacks of 2D Slices. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2015;34(9):1901–1913. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2015.2415453 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Alansary A, Rajchl M, McDonagh SG, et al. PVR: Patch-to-Volume Reconstruction for Large Area Motion Correction of Fetal MRI. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2017;36(10):2031–2044. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2017.2737081 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Shi W, Xu H, Sun C, et al. AFFIRM: Affinity Fusion-Based Framework for Iteratively Random Motion Correction of Multi-Slice Fetal Brain MRI. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2023;42(1):209–219. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2022.3208277 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Xu J, Moyer D, Grant PE, Golland P, Iglesias JE, Adalsteinsson E. SVoRT: Iterative Transformer for Slice-to-Volume Registration in Fetal Brain MRI. Med Image Comput Comput-Assist Interv MICCAI Int Conf Med Image Comput Comput-Assist Interv. 2022;13436:3–13. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-16446-0_1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Xu J, Moyer D, Gagoski B, et al. NeSVoR: Implicit Neural Representation for Slice-to-Volume Reconstruction in MRI. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2023;42(6):1707–1719. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2023.3236216 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Habas PA, Kim K, Rousseau F, Glenn OA, Barkovich AJ, Studholme C. A spatio-temporal atlas of the human fetal brain with application to tissue segmentation. Med Image Comput Comput-Assist Interv MICCAI Int Conf Med Image Comput Comput-Assist Interv. 2009;12(Pt 1):289–296. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-04268-3_36 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Serag A, Aljabar P, Ball G, et al. Construction of a consistent high-definition spatio-temporal atlas of the developing brain using adaptive kernel regression. NeuroImage. 2012;59(3):2255–2265. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.09.062 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Bethlehem R a. I, Seidlitz J, White SR, et al. Brain charts for the human lifespan. Nature. 2022;604(7906):525–533. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04554-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Rollins CK, Ortinau CM, Stopp C, et al. Regional brain growth trajectories in fetuses with congenital heart disease. Ann Neurol. 2021;89(1):143–157. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Mallela AN, Deng H, Gholipour A, Warfield SK, Goldschmidt E. Heterogeneous growth of the insula shapes the human brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2023;120(24):e2220200120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2220200120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Sadhwani A, Wypij D, Rofeberg V, et al. Fetal Brain Volume Predicts Neurodevelopment in Congenital Heart Disease. Circulation. 2022;145(15):1108–1119. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056305 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Canini M, Cavoretto P, Scifo P, et al. Subcortico-Cortical Functional Connectivity in the Fetal Brain: A Cognitive Development Blueprint. Cereb Cortex Commun. 2020;1(1):tgaa008. doi: 10.1093/texcom/tgaa008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Cook KM, De Asis-Cruz J, Lopez C, et al. Robust sex differences in functional brain connectivity are present in utero. Cereb Cortex N Y N 1991. 2023;33(6):2441–2454. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhac218 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Taymourtash A, Schwartz E, Nenning KH, et al. Fetal development of functional thalamocortical and cortico-cortical connectivity. Cereb Cortex N Y N 1991. Published online December 15, 2022:bhac446. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhac446 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Li H, Yan G, Luo W, et al. Mapping fetal brain development based on automated segmentation and 4D brain atlasing. Brain Struct Funct. 2021;226(6):1961–1972. doi: 10.1007/s00429-021-02303-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Xu X, Sun C, Sun J, et al. Spatiotemporal Atlas of the Fetal Brain Depicts Cortical Developmental Gradient. J Neurosci Off J Soc Neurosci. 2022;42(50):9435–9449. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1285-22.2022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Chen R, Sun C, Liu T, et al. Deciphering the developmental order and microstructural patterns of early white matter pathways in a diffusion MRI based fetal brain atlas. NeuroImage. 2022;264:119700. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119700 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Khan S, Vasung L, Marami B, et al. Fetal brain growth portrayed by a spatiotemporal diffusion tensor MRI atlas computed from in utero images. NeuroImage. 2019;185:593–608. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.08.030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Moeskops P, others. Deep learning for multi-task medical image segmentation in multiple modalities. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Springer; 2016:478–486. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Wang J, Wang X, Xia M, Liao X, Evans A, He Y. GRETNA: a graph theoretical network analysis toolbox for imaging connectomics. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015;9. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00386 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Chen LC, Papandreou G, Kokkinos I, Murphy K, Yuille AL. Deeplab: Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous convolution, and fully connected crfs. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2018;40(4):834–848. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Makropoulos A, Counsell SJ, Rueckert D. A review on automatic fetal and neonatal brain MRI segmentation. NeuroImage. 2018;170:231–248. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Dou H, Karimi D, Rollins CK, et al. A deep attentive convolutional neural network for automatic cortical plate segmentation in fetal MRI. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2020;40(4):1123–1133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Dumast P de, Kebiri H, Atat C, Dunet V, Koob M, Cuadra MB. Segmentation of the cortical plate in fetal brain MRI with a topological loss. In: Uncertainty for Safe Utilization of Machine Learning in Medical Imaging, and Perinatal Imaging, Placental and Preterm Image Analysis. Springer; 2021:200–209. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Fidon L, Aertsen M, Mufti N, et al. Distributionally robust segmentation of abnormal fetal brain 3d mri. In: Uncertainty for Safe Utilization of Machine Learning in Medical Imaging, and Perinatal Imaging, Placental and Preterm Image Analysis. Springer; 2021:263–273. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Payette K, Kottke R, Jakab A. Efficient multi-class fetal brain segmentation in high resolution MRI reconstructions with noisy labels. In: Medical Ultrasound, and Preterm, Perinatal and Paediatric Image Analysis. Springer; 2020:295–304. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Khalili N, Lessmann N, Turk E, et al. Automatic brain tissue segmentation in fetal MRI using convolutional neural networks. Magn Reson Imaging. 2019;64:77–89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Fetit AE, Alansary A, Cordero-Grande L, et al. A deep learning approach to segmentation of the developing cortex in fetal brain MRI with minimal manual labeling. In: Medical Imaging with Deep Learning. PMLR; 2020:241–261. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Li H, others. SuperDTI: Ultrafast DTI and fiber tractography with deep learning. Magn Reson Med. Published online 2021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Karimi D, Rollins CK, Velasco-Annis C, Ouaalam A, Gholipour A. Learning to segment fetal brain tissue from noisy annotations. Published online 2022. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2203.14962 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Uus AU, Kyriakopoulou V, Makropoulos A, et al. BOUNTI: Brain vOlumetry and aUtomated parcellatioN for 3D feTal MRI. bioRxiv. Published online 2023:2023–04. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Payette K, Li HB, de Dumast P, et al. Fetal brain tissue annotation and segmentation challenge results. Med Image Anal. 2023;88:102833. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Karimi D, Vasylechko SD, Gholipour A. Convolution-free medical image segmentation using transformers. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2021: 24th International Conference, Strasbourg, France, September 27–October 1, 2021, Proceedings, Part I 24. Springer; 2021:78–88. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Fogliarini C, Chaumoitre K, Chapon F, et al. Assessment of cortical maturation with prenatal MRI. Part I: Normal cortical maturation. Eur Radiol. 2005;15(8):1671–1685. doi: 10.1007/s00330-005-2782-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Prayer D, Kasprian G, Krampl E, et al. MRI of normal fetal brain development. Eur J Radiol. 2006;57(2):199–216. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.11.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Perkins L, Hughes E, Srinivasan L, et al. Exploring cortical subplate evolution using magnetic resonance imaging of the fetal brain. Dev Neurosci. 2008;30(1–3):211–220. doi: 10.1159/000109864 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Hu HH, Guo WY, Chen HY, et al. Morphological regionalization using fetal magnetic resonance images of normal developing brains. Eur J Neurosci. 2009;29(8):1560–1567. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06707.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Scott JA, Habas PA, Kim K, et al. Growth trajectories of the human fetal brain tissues estimated from 3D reconstructed in utero MRI. Int J Dev Neurosci. 2011;29(5):529–536. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdevneu.2011.04.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Andescavage NN, Du Plessis A, McCarter R, et al. Complex Trajectories of Brain Development in the Healthy Human Fetus. Cereb Cortex. Published online October 31, 2016:cercor;bhw306v1. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhw306 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Wu J, Awate SP, Licht DJ, et al. Assessment of MRI-Based Automated Fetal Cerebral Cortical Folding Measures in Prediction of Gestational Age in the Third Trimester. Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36(7):1369–1374. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A4357 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Garel C, Chantrel E, Brisse H, et al. Fetal cerebral cortex: normal gestational landmarks identified using prenatal MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001;22(1):184–189. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Wright R, Kyriakopoulou V, Ledig C, et al. Automatic quantification of normal cortical folding patterns from fetal brain MRI. Neuroimage. 2014;91:21–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Shi Y, Toga AW. Connectome imaging for mapping human brain pathways. Mol Psychiatry. 2017;22(9):1230–1240. doi: 10.1038/mp.2017.92 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Calixto C, Machado-Rivas F, Cortes-Albornoz MC, et al. Characterizing microstructural development in the fetal brain using diffusion MRI from 23 to 36 weeks of gestation. Cereb Cortex. Published online November 8, 2023:bhad409. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhad409 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Calixto C, Machado-Rivas F, Karimi D, et al. Population Atlas Analysis of Emerging Brain Structural Connections in the Human Fetus. J Magn Reson Imaging. Published online October 16, 2023:jmri.29057. doi: 10.1002/jmri.29057 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Deprez M, Price A, Christiaens D, Estrin GL, others. Higher order spherical harmonics reconstruction of fetal diffusion MRI with intensity correction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2019;39(4):1104–1113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Marami B, Scherrer B, Afacan O, Erem B, Warfield SK, Gholipour A. Motion-Robust Diffusion-Weighted Brain MRI Reconstruction Through Slice-Level Registration-Based Motion Tracking. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2016;35(10):2258–2269. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2016.2555244 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Jakab A, Tuura R, Kellenberger C, Scheer I. In utero diffusion tensor imaging of the fetal brain: A reproducibility study. NeuroImage Clin. 2017;15:601–612. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2017.06.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Kober T, Gruetter R, Krueger G. Prospective and retrospective motion correction in diffusion magnetic resonance imaging of the human brain. NeuroImage. 2012;59(1):389–398. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.07.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Herbst M, Poser BA, Singh A, et al. Motion correction for diffusion weighted SMS imaging. Magn Reson Imaging. 2017;38:33–38. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2016.12.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Jiang S, Xue H, Counsell S, et al. Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) of the brain in moving subjects: application to in-utero fetal and ex-utero studies. Magn Reson Med Off J Int Soc Magn Reson Med. 2009;62(3):645–655. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Oubel E, Koob M, Studholme C, Dietemann JL, Rousseau F. Reconstruction of scattered data in fetal diffusion MRI. Med Image Anal. 2012;16(1):28–37. doi: 10.1016/j.media.2011.04.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Scherrer B, Gholipour A, Warfield SK. Super-resolution reconstruction to increase the spatial resolution of diffusion weighted images from orthogonal anisotropic acquisitions. Med Image Anal. 2012;16(7):1465–1476. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Fogtmann M, Seshamani S, Kroenke C, et al. A unified approach to diffusion direction sensitive slice registration and 3-D DTI reconstruction from moving fetal brain anatomy. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2014;33(2):272–289. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2013.2284014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Uus A, Kyriakopoulou V, Cordero Grande L, et al. Multi-channel spatio-temporal MRI atlas of the normal fetal brain development from the developing Human Connectome Project. Published online February 26, 2023:14 GiB. doi: 10.12751/G-NODE.YSGSY1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Calixto C, Machado-Rivas F, Karimi D, et al. Detailed anatomic segmentations of a fetal brain diffusion tensor imaging atlas between 23 and 30 weeks of gestation. Hum Brain Mapp. 2023;44(4):1593–1602. doi: 10.1002/hbm.26160 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Trivedi R, Husain N, Rathore RKS, et al. Correlation of Diffusion Tensor Imaging with Histology in the Developing Human Frontal Cerebrum. Dev Neurosci. 2009;31(6):487–496. doi: 10.1159/000229500 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Maas LC, Mukherjee P, Carballido-Gamio J, et al. Early laminar organization of the human cerebrum demonstrated with diffusion tensor imaging in extremely premature infants. NeuroImage. 2004;22(3):1134–1140. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.02.035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Xu G, Takahashi E, Folkerth RD, et al. Radial Coherence of Diffusion Tractography in the Cerebral White Matter of the Human Fetus: Neuroanatomic Insights. Cereb Cortex. 2014;24(3):579–592. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhs330 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Huang H, Ceritoglu C, Li X, et al. Correction of B0 susceptibility induced distortion in diffusion-weighted images using large-deformation diffeomorphic metric mapping. Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;26(9):1294–1302. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2008.03.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Zhang H, Avants BB, Yushkevich PA, et al. High-dimensional spatial normalization of diffusion tensor images improves the detection of white matter differences: an example study using amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2007;26(11):1585–1597. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2007.906784 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Akhondi-Asl A, Hoyte L, Lockhart ME, Warfield SK. A logarithmic opinion pool based STAPLE algorithm for the fusion of segmentations with associated reliability weights. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2014;33(10):1997–2009. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2014.2329603 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Cho KH, Yeh CH, Tournier JD, Chao YP, Chen JH, Lin CP. Evaluation of the accuracy and angular resolution of q-ball imaging. NeuroImage. 2008;42(1):262–271. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.03.053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Tournier JD, Calamante F, Connelly A. Robust determination of the fibre orientation distribution in diffusion MRI: non-negativity constrained super-resolved spherical deconvolution. Neuroimage. 2007;35(4):1459–1472. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Kebiri H, Gholipour A, Lin R, Vasung L, Karimi D, Bach Cuadra M. Robust Estimation of the Microstructure of the Early Developing Brain Using Deep Learning. In: Greenspan H, Madabhushi A, Mousavi P, et al. , eds. Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2023. Vol 14226. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Nature; Switzerland; 2023:293–303. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-43990-2_28 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Bui T, Daire JL, Chalard F, et al. Microstructural development of human brain assessed in utero by diffusion tensor imaging. Pediatr Radiol. 2006;36(11):1133–1140. doi: 10.1007/s00247-006-0266-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Zanin E, Ranjeva J, Confort-Gouny S, et al. White matter maturation of normal human fetal brain. An in vivo diffusion tensor tractography study. Brain Behav. 2011;1(2):95–108. doi: 10.1002/brb3.17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Jaimes C, Machado-Rivas F, Afacan O, et al. In vivo characterization of emerging white matter microstructure in the fetal brain in the third trimester. Hum Brain Mapp. 2020;41(12):3177–3185. doi: 10.1002/hbm.25006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Jakab A, Pogledic I, Schwartz E, et al. Fetal Cerebral Magnetic Resonance Imaging Beyond Morphology. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2015;36(6):465–475. doi: 10.1053/j.sult.2015.06.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Keunen K, van der Burgh HK, de Reus MA, et al. Early human brain development: insights into macroscale connectome wiring. Pediatr Res. 2018;84(6):829–836. doi: 10.1038/s41390-018-0138-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Machado-Rivas F, Afacan O, Khan S, et al. Spatiotemporal changes in diffusivity and anisotropy in fetal brain tractography. Hum Brain Mapp. 2021;42(17):5771–5784. doi: 10.1002/hbm.25653 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Wilson S, Pietsch M, Cordero-Grande L, et al. Development of human white matter pathways in utero over the second and third trimester. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2021;118(20):e2023598118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2023598118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Corroenne R, Grevent D, Salomon LJ. Tractography of fetal visual pathway. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Off J Int Soc Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2023;62(4):614–615. doi: 10.1002/uog.26269 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Wilson S, Pietsch M, Cordero-Grande L, et al. Spatiotemporal tissue maturation of thalamocortical pathways in the human fetal brain. eLife. 2023;12:e83727. doi: 10.7554/eLife.83727 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Desai S, Desai T. Hypoechoic callosal area in fetus: elucidating the true microarchitecture with fetal MRI fiber tractography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. Published online August 14, 2023:uog.27455. doi: 10.1002/uog.27455 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Calixto C, Jaimes C, Soldatelli MD, Warfield SK, Gholipour A, Karimi D. Anatomically Constrained Tractography of the Fetal Brain. ArXiv Prepr ArXiv240302444. Published online 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.02444 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Kostović I, Radoš M, Kostović-Srzentić M, Krsnik Ž. Fundamentals of the Development of Connectivity in the Human Fetal Brain in Late Gestation: From 24 Weeks Gestational Age to Term. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2021;80(5):393–414. doi: 10.1093/jnen/nlab024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Chen JE, Glover GH. Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Methods. Neuropsychol Rev. 2015;25(3):289–313. doi: 10.1007/s11065-015-9294-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Schöpf V, Kasprian G, Brugger PC, Prayer D. Watching the fetal brain at “rest.” Int J Dev Neurosci Off J Int Soc Dev Neurosci. 2012;30(1):11–17. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdevneu.2011.10.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Thomason ME, Brown JA, Dassanayake MT, et al. Intrinsic Functional Brain Architecture Derived from Graph Theoretical Analysis in the Human Fetus. Margulies D, ed. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(5):e94423. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094423 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.De Asis-Cruz J, Kapse K, Basu SK, et al. Functional brain connectivity in ex utero premature infants compared to in utero fetuses. NeuroImage. 2020;219:117043. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117043 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Karolis VR, Fitzgibbon SP, Cordero-Grande L, et al. Maturational networks of human fetal brain activity reveal emerging connectivity patterns prior to ex-utero exposure. Commun Biol. 2023;6(1):661. doi: 10.1038/s42003-023-04969-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.van den Heuvel MI, Turk E, Manning JH, et al. Hubs in the human fetal brain network. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2018;30:108–115. doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2018.02.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Turk E, van den Heuvel MI, Benders MJ, et al. Functional Connectome of the Fetal Brain. J Neurosci Off J Soc Neurosci. 2019;39(49):9716–9724. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2891-18.2019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.De Asis-Cruz J, Andersen N, Kapse K, et al. Global Network Organization of the Fetal Functional Connectome. Cereb Cortex N Y N 1991. 2021;31(6):3034–3046. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhaa410 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Toulmin H, Beckmann CF, O’Muircheartaigh J, et al. Specialization and integration of functional thalamocortical connectivity in the human infant. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112(20):6485–6490. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1422638112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Cao M, Huang H, He Y. Developmental Connectomics from Infancy through Early Childhood. Trends Neurosci. 2017;40(8):494–506. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2017.06.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Scheinost D, Chang J, Lacadie C, et al. Functional connectivity for the language network in the developing brain: 30 weeks of gestation to 30 months of age. Cereb Cortex N Y N 1991. 2022;32(15):3289–3301. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhab415 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Wheelock MD, Hect JL, Hernandez-Andrade E, et al. Sex differences in functional connectivity during fetal brain development. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2019;36:100632. doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2019.100632 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Thomason ME, Hect J, Waller R, et al. Prenatal neural origins of infant motor development: Associations between fetal brain and infant motor development. Dev Psychopathol. 2018;30(3):763–772. doi: 10.1017/S095457941800072X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Hendrix CL, Ji L, Werchan DM, et al. Fetal Frontolimbic Connectivity Prospectively Associates With Aggression in Toddlers. Biol Psychiatry Glob Open Sci. 2023;3(4):969–978. doi: 10.1016/j.bpsgos.2022.09.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Jones EG. The thalamic matrix and thalamocortical synchrony. Trends Neurosci. 2001;24(10):595–601. doi: 10.1016/s0166-2236(00)01922-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Eyre M, Fitzgibbon SP, Ciarrusta J, et al. The Developing Human Connectome Project: typical and disrupted perinatal functional connectivity. Brain J Neurol. 2021;144(7):2199–2213. doi: 10.1093/brain/awab118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Wheelock MD, Austin NC, Bora S, et al. Altered functional network connectivity relates to motor development in children born very preterm. NeuroImage. 2018;183:574–583. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.08.051 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Scheinost D, Kwon SH, Lacadie C, et al. Prenatal stress alters amygdala functional connectivity in preterm neonates. NeuroImage Clin. 2016;12:381–388. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2016.08.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Thomason ME, Hect JL, Waller R, Curtin P. Interactive relations between maternal prenatal stress, fetal brain connectivity, and gestational age at delivery. Neuropsychopharmacol Off Publ Am Coll Neuropsychopharmacol. 2021;46(10):1839–1847. doi: 10.1038/s41386-021-01066-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Wu Y, Espinosa KM, Barnett SD, et al. Association of Elevated Maternal Psychological Distress, Altered Fetal Brain, and Offspring Cognitive and Social-Emotional Outcomes at 18 Months. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(4):e229244. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.9244 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128.De Asis-Cruz J, Krishnamurthy D, Zhao L, et al. Association of Prenatal Maternal Anxiety With Fetal Regional Brain Connectivity. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(12):e2022349. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.22349 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Norr ME, Hect JL, Lenniger CJ, Van den Heuvel M, Thomason ME. An examination of maternal prenatal BMI and human fetal brain development. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2021;62(4):458–469. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.13301 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 130.Thomason ME, Hect JL, Rauh VA, et al. Prenatal lead exposure impacts cross-hemispheric and long-range connectivity in the human fetal brain. NeuroImage. 2019;191:186–192. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.02.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 131.Wozniak JR, Mueller BA, Mattson SN, et al. Functional connectivity abnormalities and associated cognitive deficits in fetal alcohol Spectrum disorders (FASD). Brain Imaging Behav. 2017;11(5):1432–1445. doi: 10.1007/s11682-016-9624-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 132.Friston KJ, Williams S, Howard R, Frackowiak RS, Turner R. Movement-related effects in fMRI time-series. Magn Reson Med. 1996;35(3):346–355. doi: 10.1002/mrm.1910350312 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 133.Nichols ES, Correa S, Van Dyken P, et al. Funcmasker-flex: An Automated BIDS-App for Brain Segmentation of Human Fetal Functional MRI data. Neuroinformatics. 2023;21(3):565–573. doi: 10.1007/s12021-023-09629-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 134.Faghihpirayesh R, Karimi D, Erdoğmuş D, Gholipour A. Fetal-BET: Brain Extraction Tool for Fetal MRI. Published online 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 135.Seshamani S, Cheng X, Fogtmann M, Thomason ME, Studholme C. A method for handling intensity inhomogenieties in fMRI sequences of moving anatomy of the early developing brain. Med Image Anal. 2014;18(2):285–300. doi: 10.1016/j.media.2013.10.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 136.Ferrazzi G, Kuklisova Murgasova M, Arichi T, et al. Resting State fMRI in the moving fetus: a robust framework for motion, bias field and spin history correction. NeuroImage. 2014;101:555–568. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.06.074 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 137.Scheinost D, Onofrey JA, Kwon SH, et al. A fetal fMRI specific motion correction algorithm using 2 nd order edge features. In: 2018 IEEE 15th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI 2018). IEEE; 2018:1288–1292. doi: 10.1109/ISBI.2018.8363807 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 138.Liao R, Turk EA, Zhang M, et al. Temporal Registration in In-Utero Volumetric MRI Time Series. Med Image Comput Comput-Assist Interv MICCAI Int Conf Med Image Comput Comput-Assist Interv. 2016;9902:54–62. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-46726-9_7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 139.Sobotka D, Ebner M, Schwartz E, et al. Motion correction and volumetric reconstruction for fetal functional magnetic resonance imaging data. NeuroImage. 2022;255:119213. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119213 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 140.Taymourtash A, Kebiri H, Schwartz E, et al. Spatio-temporal motion correction and iterative reconstruction of in-utero fetal fMRI. Published online 2022. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2209.08272 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 141.Pecco N, Canini M, Mosser KHH, et al. RS-FetMRI: a MATLAB-SPM Based Tool for Pre-processing Fetal Resting-State fMRI Data. Neuroinformatics. 2022;20(4):1137–1154. doi: 10.1007/s12021-022-09592-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 142.Jansen JFA, Backes WH, Nicolay K, Kooi ME. 1H MR spectroscopy of the brain: absolute quantification of metabolites. Radiology. 2006;240(2):318–332. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2402050314 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 143.Berger-Kulemann V, Brugger PC, Pugash D, et al. MR spectroscopy of the fetal brain: is it possible without sedation? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2013;34(2):424–431. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A3196 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 144.Evangelou IE, du Plessis AJ, Vezina G, Noeske R, Limperopoulos C. Elucidating Metabolic Maturation in the Healthy Fetal Brain Using 1H-MR Spectroscopy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37(2):360–366. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A4512 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 145.Girard N, Fogliarini C, Viola A, et al. MRS of normal and impaired fetal brain development. Eur J Radiol. 2006;57(2):217–225. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.11.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 146.Girard N, Gouny SC, Viola A, et al. Assessment of normal fetal brain maturation in utero by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Magn Reson Med. 2006;56(4):768–775. doi: 10.1002/mrm.21017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 147.Kok RD, van den Berg PP, van den Bergh AJ, Nijland R, Heerschap A. Maturation of the human fetal brain as observed by 1H MR spectroscopy. Magn Reson Med. 2002;48(4):611–616. doi: 10.1002/mrm.10264 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 148.Frahm J, Merboldt KD, Hänicke W. Localized proton spectroscopy using stimulated echoes. J Magn Reson 1969. 1987;72(3):502–508. doi: 10.1016/0022-2364(87)90154-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 149.Bottomley PA. Selective volume method for performing localized NMR spectroscopy. Published online October 30, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  • 150.Moonen CT, von Kienlin M, van Zijl PC, et al. Comparison of single-shot localization methods (STEAM and PRESS) for in vivo proton NMR spectroscopy. NMR Biomed. 1989;2(5–6):201–208. doi: 10.1002/nbm.1940020506 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 151.Sanz Cortes M, Bargallo N, Arranz A, Simoes R, Figueras F, Gratacos E. Feasibility and Success Rate of a Fetal MRI and MR Spectroscopy Research Protocol Performed at Term Using a 3.0-Tesla Scanner. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2017;41(2):127–135. doi: 10.1159/000445947 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 152.Simões RV, Sanz-Cortes M, Muñoz-Moreno E, et al. Feasibility and technical features of fetal brain magnetic resonance spectroscopy in 1.5 T scanners. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(5):741–742. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.06.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 153.Brighina E, Bresolin N, Pardi G, Rango M. Human fetal brain chemistry as detected by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Pediatr Neurol. 2009;40(5):327–342. doi: 10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2008.11.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 154.Story L, Damodaram MS, Allsop JM, et al. Brain metabolism in fetal intrauterine growth restriction: a proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(5):483.e1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.06.032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 155.Wolfberg AJ, Robinson JN, Mulkern R, Rybicki F, Du Plessis AJ. Identification of fetal cerebral lactate using magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196(1):e9–11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2006.09.036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 156.Andescavage NN, Pradhan S, Gimovsky AC, et al. Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy of Brain Metabolism in Fetuses With Congenital Heart Disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2023;82(16):1614–1623. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2023.08.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 157.Shedeed SA, Elfaytouri E. Brain maturity and brain injury in newborns with cyanotic congenital heart disease. Pediatr Cardiol. 2011;32(1):47–54. doi: 10.1007/s00246-010-9813-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES