Comparison of diameter-based and image-based measures of surface area from gross placental pathology for use in epidemiologic studies

Alexa A. Freedman; Lauren M. Kipling; Katie Labgold; Carmen J. Marsit; Carol J. Hogue; Augustine Rajakumar; Alicia K. Smith; Halit Pinar; Deborah L. Conway; Radek Bukowski; Michael W. Varner; Robert L. Goldenberg; Donald J. Dudley; Carolyn Drews-Botsch

doi:10.1016/j.placenta.2018.07.013

Comparison of diameter-based and image-based measures of surface area from gross placental pathology for use in epidemiologic studies

Alexa A. Freedman
, Lauren M. Kipling
, Katie Labgold
, Carmen J. Marsit
, Carol J. Hogue
, Augustine Rajakumar
, Alicia K. Smith
, Halit Pinar
, Deborah L. Conway
, Radek Bukowski
, Michael W. Varner
, Robert L. Goldenberg
, Donald J. Dudley
, Carolyn Drews-Botsch

Emory University
Brown University
University of Texas Health Science Center
University of Texas at Austin
University of Utah
Columbia University
University of Virginia

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

Placental surface area is often estimated using diameter measurements. However, as many placentas are not elliptical, we were interested in the validity of these estimates. We compared placental surface area from images for 491 singletons from the Stillbirth Collaborative Research Network (SCRN) Study (416 live births, 75 stillbirths) to estimates obtained using diameter measurements. Placental images and diameters were obtained from pathologic assessments conducted for the SCRN Study and images were analyzed using ImageJ software. On average, diameter-based measures underestimated surface area by −5.58% (95% confidence interval: −30.23, 19.07); results were consistent for normal and abnormal shapes. The association between surface area and birthweight was similar for both measures. Thus, diameter-based surface area can be used to estimate placental surface area.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	82-85
Number of pages	4
Journal	Placenta
Volume	69
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.placenta.2018.07.013
State	Published - Sep 2018
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

Assumption
Placental surface area
Validation

Access to Document

10.1016/j.placenta.2018.07.013

Cite this

Freedman, A. A., Kipling, L. M., Labgold, K., Marsit, C. J., Hogue, C. J., Rajakumar, A., Smith, A. K., Pinar, H., Conway, D. L., Bukowski, R., Varner, M. W., Goldenberg, R. L., Dudley, D. J., & Drews-Botsch, C. (2018). Comparison of diameter-based and image-based measures of surface area from gross placental pathology for use in epidemiologic studies. Placenta, 69, 82-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.placenta.2018.07.013

@article{2978ac1a1f9b41f0a2633f7819fbe103,

title = "Comparison of diameter-based and image-based measures of surface area from gross placental pathology for use in epidemiologic studies",

abstract = "Placental surface area is often estimated using diameter measurements. However, as many placentas are not elliptical, we were interested in the validity of these estimates. We compared placental surface area from images for 491 singletons from the Stillbirth Collaborative Research Network (SCRN) Study (416 live births, 75 stillbirths) to estimates obtained using diameter measurements. Placental images and diameters were obtained from pathologic assessments conducted for the SCRN Study and images were analyzed using ImageJ software. On average, diameter-based measures underestimated surface area by −5.58\% (95\% confidence interval: −30.23, 19.07); results were consistent for normal and abnormal shapes. The association between surface area and birthweight was similar for both measures. Thus, diameter-based surface area can be used to estimate placental surface area.",

keywords = "Assumption, Placental surface area, Validation",

author = "Freedman, \{Alexa A.\} and Kipling, \{Lauren M.\} and Katie Labgold and Marsit, \{Carmen J.\} and Hogue, \{Carol J.\} and Augustine Rajakumar and Smith, \{Alicia K.\} and Halit Pinar and Conway, \{Deborah L.\} and Radek Bukowski and Varner, \{Michael W.\} and Goldenberg, \{Robert L.\} and Dudley, \{Donald J.\} and Carolyn Drews-Botsch",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2018 Elsevier Ltd",

year = "2018",

month = sep,

doi = "10.1016/j.placenta.2018.07.013",

language = "English",

volume = "69",

pages = "82--85",

journal = "Placenta",

issn = "0143-4004",

publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",

}

Freedman, AA, Kipling, LM, Labgold, K, Marsit, CJ, Hogue, CJ, Rajakumar, A, Smith, AK, Pinar, H, Conway, DL, Bukowski, R, Varner, MW, Goldenberg, RL, Dudley, DJ & Drews-Botsch, C 2018, 'Comparison of diameter-based and image-based measures of surface area from gross placental pathology for use in epidemiologic studies', Placenta, vol. 69, pp. 82-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.placenta.2018.07.013

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of diameter-based and image-based measures of surface area from gross placental pathology for use in epidemiologic studies

AU - Freedman, Alexa A.

AU - Kipling, Lauren M.

AU - Labgold, Katie

AU - Marsit, Carmen J.

AU - Hogue, Carol J.

AU - Rajakumar, Augustine

AU - Smith, Alicia K.

AU - Pinar, Halit

AU - Conway, Deborah L.

AU - Bukowski, Radek

AU - Varner, Michael W.

AU - Goldenberg, Robert L.

AU - Dudley, Donald J.

AU - Drews-Botsch, Carolyn

PY - 2018/9

Y1 - 2018/9

N2 - Placental surface area is often estimated using diameter measurements. However, as many placentas are not elliptical, we were interested in the validity of these estimates. We compared placental surface area from images for 491 singletons from the Stillbirth Collaborative Research Network (SCRN) Study (416 live births, 75 stillbirths) to estimates obtained using diameter measurements. Placental images and diameters were obtained from pathologic assessments conducted for the SCRN Study and images were analyzed using ImageJ software. On average, diameter-based measures underestimated surface area by −5.58% (95% confidence interval: −30.23, 19.07); results were consistent for normal and abnormal shapes. The association between surface area and birthweight was similar for both measures. Thus, diameter-based surface area can be used to estimate placental surface area.

AB - Placental surface area is often estimated using diameter measurements. However, as many placentas are not elliptical, we were interested in the validity of these estimates. We compared placental surface area from images for 491 singletons from the Stillbirth Collaborative Research Network (SCRN) Study (416 live births, 75 stillbirths) to estimates obtained using diameter measurements. Placental images and diameters were obtained from pathologic assessments conducted for the SCRN Study and images were analyzed using ImageJ software. On average, diameter-based measures underestimated surface area by −5.58% (95% confidence interval: −30.23, 19.07); results were consistent for normal and abnormal shapes. The association between surface area and birthweight was similar for both measures. Thus, diameter-based surface area can be used to estimate placental surface area.

KW - Assumption

KW - Placental surface area

KW - Validation

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85050821937

U2 - 10.1016/j.placenta.2018.07.013

DO - 10.1016/j.placenta.2018.07.013

M3 - Article

C2 - 30213489

AN - SCOPUS:85050821937

SN - 0143-4004

VL - 69

SP - 82

EP - 85

JO - Placenta

JF - Placenta

ER -

Comparison of diameter-based and image-based measures of surface area from gross placental pathology for use in epidemiologic studies

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this