Cited by 127Neonatal and fetal brain pathologyInfant Development and Preterm CareFetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders

The predictive validity of neonatal MRI for neurodevelopmental outcome in very preterm children

Anderson, Peter J., Cheong, Jeanie L.Y., Thompson, Deanne K.·2015·Seminars in Perinatology

Abstract

Very preterm children are at a high risk for neurodevelopmental impairments, but there is variability in the pattern and severity of outcome. Neonatal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) enhances the capacity to detect brain injury and altered brain development and assists in the prediction of high-risk children who warrant surveillance and early intervention. This review describes the application of conventional and advanced MRI with very preterm neonates, specifically focusing on the relationship between neonatal MRI findings and later neurodevelopmental outcome. Research demonstrates that conventional MRI is strongly associated with neurodevelopmental outcome in childhood. Further studies are needed to examine the role of advanced MRI techniques in predicting outcome in very preterm children, but early research findings are promising. In conclusion, neonatal MRI is predictive of later neurodevelopment but is dependent on appropriately trained specialists and should be interpreted in conjunction with other clinical and social information.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1053/j.semperi.2015.01.008

Cites

108 of 108 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Studies of premature infants have generally found that abnormalities of grey-matter and white-matter volume and white-matter diffusivity are associated with poor neurodevelopmental outcomes.

    “studies of premature infants have generally found that abnormalities of grey-matter and white-matter volume and of white-matter diffusivity are associated with poor neurodevelopmental outcomes 11, 186.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Anderson, P. J., Cheong, J. L. Y., & Thompson, D. K.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Royal Women's Hospital (AU)
Corresponding author
Anderson, Peter J.
Venue
Seminars in Perinatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-03
Volume
39
Issue
2
Pages
147-158
ISSN
0146-0005 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2055335542
Cited by
127
References
108
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 1
FWCI
13.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Seminars in Perinatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Neonatal and fetal brain pathology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Infant Development and Preterm Care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Fetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
Keywords
neonatal MRI, very preterm infants, neurodevelopmental outcomes, predictive validity, brain injury, advanced MRI techniques, early intervention, perinatal brain development
MeSH terms
Brain, Brain Injuries, Developmental Disabilities, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Infant, Premature, Infant, Premature, Diseases, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Predictive Value of Tests, Severity of Illness Index, Intensive Care, Neonatal, Neuroimaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review