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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

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 languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)82-85
Number of pages4
JournalPlacenta
Volume69
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2018

Keywords

  • Assumption
  • Placental surface area
  • Validation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • Developmental Biology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of diameter-based and image-based measures of surface area from gross placental pathology for use in epidemiologic studies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this