AJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hatab, M. R.
Right arrow Articles by Twickler, D. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hatab, M. R.
Right arrow Articles by Twickler, D. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?

Comparison of Fetal Biometric Values with Sonographic and 3D Reconstruction MRI in Term Gestations

Mustapha R. Hatab1, Michael V. Zaretsky2, James M. Alexander2 and Diane M. Twickler2,3

1 Department of Radiology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, MC 7800, 7703 Floyd Curl Dr., San Antonio, TX 78229-3900.
2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX.
3 Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX.


Figure 1
View larger version (105K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 1 —23-year-old pregnant woman. MR image shows sample abdominal circumference measurement, which was the only one obtained from the 7-mm acquisition.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (129K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 2A —21-year-old pregnant woman. Sample raw 4-mm axial MR images (A–C) and optimized reconstruction (D) for obtaining the biparietal diameter (BPD), occipital–frontal diameter (OFD), and head circumference (HC).

 

Figure 3
View larger version (139K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 2B —21-year-old pregnant woman. Sample raw 4-mm axial MR images (A–C) and optimized reconstruction (D) for obtaining the biparietal diameter (BPD), occipital–frontal diameter (OFD), and head circumference (HC).

 

Figure 4
View larger version (171K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 2C —21-year-old pregnant woman. Sample raw 4-mm axial MR images (A–C) and optimized reconstruction (D) for obtaining the biparietal diameter (BPD), occipital–frontal diameter (OFD), and head circumference (HC).

 

Figure 5
View larger version (106K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 2D —21-year-old pregnant woman. Sample raw 4-mm axial MR images (A–C) and optimized reconstruction (D) for obtaining the biparietal diameter (BPD), occipital–frontal diameter (OFD), and head circumference (HC).

 

Figure 6
View larger version (7K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 3A —Biparietal diameter. Graph shows results of comparison of sonographic and MRI measurements with line of equality (dashed) and line of best fit (solid).

 

Figure 7
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 3B —Biparietal diameter. Bland-Altman plot corresponding to A shows mean and 95% limits of agreement.

 

Figure 8
View larger version (8K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 4A —Occipital–frontal diameter. Graph shows results of comparison of sonographic and MRI measurements with line of equality (dashed) and line of best fit (solid).

 

Figure 9
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 4B —Occipital–frontal diameter. Bland-Altman plot corresponding to A shows mean and 95% limits of agreement.

 

Figure 10
View larger version (8K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 5A —Head circumference. Graph shows results of comparison of sonographic and MRI measurements with line of equality (dashed) and line of best fit (solid).

 

Figure 11
View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 5B —Head circumference. Bland-Altman plot corresponding to A shows mean and 95% limits of agreement.

 

Figure 12
View larger version (7K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 6A —Abdominal circumference. Graph shows results of comparison of sonographic and MRI measurements with line of equality (dashed) and line of best fit (solid).

 

Figure 13
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Fig. 6B —Abdominal circumference. Bland-Altman plot corresponding to A shows mean and 95% limits of agreement.

 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?



HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.