A technique for the estimation of fractional moving blood volume by using three-dimensional power Doppler US
Abstract
PURPOSE: To (a) demonstrate an image-processing method that can automatically measure the power Doppler signal in a three-dimensional ( 3D three-dimensional ) ultrasonographic (US) volume by using the location of organs within the image and (b) compare 3D three-dimensional fractional moving blood volume ( FMBV fractional moving blood volume ) results with commonly used, unstandardized measures of 3D three-dimensional power Doppler by using the human placenta as the organ of interest. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study of scans obtained as part of a prospective study of imaging placental biomarkers with US, performed with ethical approval and written informed consent. One hundred forty-three consecutive female patients were examined by using an image-processing technique. Three-dimensional FMBV fractional moving blood volume was measured on the vasculature from the uteroplacental interface to a depth 5 mm into the placenta by using a normalization volume 10 mm outside the uteroplacental interface and compared against the Virtual Organ Computer-aided AnaLysis ( VOCAL Virtual Organ Computer-aided AnaLysis ; GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, Wis) vascularization flow index ( VFI vascularization flow index ). Intra- and interobserver variability was assessed in a subset of 18 volumes. Wilcoxon signed rank test and intraclass correlation coefficients were used to assess measurement repeatability. RESULTS: The mean 3D three-dimensional FMBV fractional moving blood volume value ± standard deviation was 11.78% ± 9.30 (range, 0.012%-44.16%). Mean VFI vascularization flow index was 2.26 ± 0.96 (range, 0.15-6.06). Linear regression of VFI vascularization flow index versus FMBV fractional moving blood volume produced an R(2) value of 0.211 and was significantly different in distribution (P < .001). Intraclass correlation coefficient analysis showed higher FMBV fractional moving blood volume values than VFI vascularization flow index for intra- and interobserver variability; intraobserver values were 0.95 for FMBV fractional moving blood volume (95% confidence interval [ CI confidence interval ]: 0.90, 0.98) versus 0.899 for VFI vascularization flow index (95% CI confidence interval : 0.78, 0.96), and interobserver values were 0.93 for FMBV fractional moving blood volume (95% CI confidence interval : 0.82, 0.97) versus 0.67 for VFI vascularization flow index (95% CI confidence interval : 0.32, 0.86). CONCLUSION: The extension of an existing two-dimensional standardized power Doppler measurement into 3D three-dimensional by using an image-processing technique was shown in an in utero placental study. Three-dimensional FMBV fractional moving blood volume and VFI vascularization flow index produced significantly different results. FMBV fractional moving blood volume performed better than VFI vascularization flow index in repeatability studies. Further studies are needed to assess accuracy against a reference standard.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
When combined with power Doppler ultrasound, the model will allow automated measurement of perfusion of the utero-placental interface.
“When combined with power Doppler ultrasound this will allow for automated measurement of perfusion of the utero-placental interface [10], [44].”
From Fully Automated 3-D Ultrasound Segmentation of the Placenta, Amniotic Fluid, and Fetus for Early Pregnancy Assessment (2021) · cites this paper as [44]
Standardisation of 2-D power Doppler imaging is possible using the validated technique of fractional moving blood volume (FMBV), in which a large blood vessel is identified and used as a point of reference.
“Standardisation of 2-D power Doppler imaging is possible using the validated technique of fractional moving blood volume (FMBV), in which a large blood vessel is identified and used as a point of reference.”
From Volume and vascularity: Using ultrasound to unlock the secrets of the first trimester placenta (2019) · cites this paper as [62]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 38
- Authors
- Stevenson, G. N., Collins, S. L., Welsh, A. W., Impey, L. W., & Noble, J. A.
- Affiliations
- Royal Hospital for Women (AU)
- John Radcliffe Hospital (GB)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 2015-01
- Volume
- 274
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 230-237
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2004058198
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6
- FWCI
- 3.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Radiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Ultrasound Imaging and Elastography
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Ultrasound in Clinical Applications
- Keywords
- three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound, placental vascularization, uteroplacental interface, vascularization flow index, placental biomarkers, repeatability, observer variability, fetal growth restriction, preeclampsia, placental insufficiency
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Blood Flow Velocity, Blood Volume, Female, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Placenta, Pregnancy, Prospective Studies, Reproducibility of Results, Ultrasonography, Doppler, Imaging, Three-Dimensional
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