Brain Assessment from Fetus to Neonate in Terms of Morphology and Function: Role of Neonatologist
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia; Neonatal Unit, University Hospital Sveti Duh, Zagreb, Croatia
2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia; University Hospital Sveti Duh, Zagreb, Croatia
3Clinic of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Clinical Center, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Corresponding Author: Milan Stanojević, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia; Neonatal Unit, University Hospital Sveti Duh, Zagreb, Croatia, Phone: +385913712110, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on: 20 January 2023; Accepted on: 12 February 2023; Published on: 14 April 2023
Assessment of the structure and function of the brain was enabled by the development of ultrasound (US) technology, which may depict how complicated developmental processes of the brain structure in utero can result in complex behavior of embryo and fetus. Extrauterine life is the continuation of intrauterine life, and transposing our knowledge of brain structure and function from prenatal to postnatal life is an important approach to making the distinction between normal and abnormal brain development and the early diagnosis of various structural or functional brain abnormalities. The invention of four-dimensional US (4D US) enabled the introduction of the Kurjak Antenatal Neurodevelopmental Test (KANET), which opened up a new field of fetal neurology. The KANET is a standardized and comprehensive method to evaluate fetal neurological condition objectively and reproducibly by observation of fetal behavior and general movements (GMs). Based on the existing investigation, if the KANET score is normal, then there is a high probability that the development of the infant will be normal, with a very low probability that the child with developmental delay would have been missed, while the prediction is more complicated if the score is abnormal or borderline.
How to cite this article: Stanojević M, Kurjak A, Međedović E. Brain Assessment from Fetus to Neonate in Terms of Morphology and Function: Role of Neonatologist. Donald School J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2023;17(1):97-102.
Source of support: Nil
Conflict of interest: Dr. Milan Stanojević, Dr. Asim Kurjak and Dr. Edin Medjedovic are associated as the Editorial Board Members of this journal and this manuscript was subjected to this journal’s standard review procedures, with this peer review handled independently of these Editorial Board Members and their research group.
Keywords: Brain, Four-dimensional, Fetal behavior, Function, Neonate, Structure, Ultrasound.
This paper was presented at the symposium ZAGREB-NEW YORK ETHICAL AND PERINATAL DIALOGUE (1st International Symposium When does human life begin? Ethics, law, and professionalism in reproductive medicine; and Fetal neurology: from short- to the long-term follow-up - how to proceed? Multi-center results on the clinical use of KANET), held on 8–9 October 2022 in Zagreb, Croatia.
It was in 1895 when Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen invented X-rays, which has been considered the turning point in the diagnosis of many diseases.1 Although this ingenious invention improved many fields of medicine, the human brain remained inaccessible till the development of the computed axial tomography scan by Godfrey Hounsfield some 80 years after Röntgen’s discovery.2 The development of embryology, physiology, and sophisticated imaging, electrophysiological, genetic, and other neurological diagnostic procedures enabled better insight into the developing human brain.3 Assessment of the structure and function of the brain was enabled by the development of US technology, which may depict how complicated developmental processes of the brain structure in utero can result in complex behavior of embryo and fetus.4-10 Extrauterine life is the continuation of the intrauterine life, and transposing our knowledge of brain structure and function from prenatal to postnatal life is an important approach to making the distinction between normal and abnormal brain development and the early diagnosis of various structural or functional brain abnormalities.4-13
The brain is a very dynamically developing organ with long-lasting developmental processes till the beginning of the 70s of human life, which make the study of this organ very complicated and challenging.14,15 In an infant born at term, characteristic cellular layers can be observed in motor, somatosensor, and visual and auditory cortical areas.15-17 While proliferation and migration are completed in a term infant, synaptogenesis, neuronal differentiation, and myelination continue very intensively.15 Impairment of the brain is very high due to very complicated development, which is making brain congenital anomalies among the most prevalent.15 As dynamics of the developmental changes of the brain is highest in pregnancy, most of the brain injuries occur in utero, while intrapartal and postnatal disorders are much less frequent.15 It is questionable whether there is a possibility to diagnose structural and/or functional disorders of the brain in utero to predict the clinical picture of the disease after birth. With the development of fetal neurology using 4D US, it has become possible to assess fetal behavior as a promising screening tool to detect those fetuses at high risk for the development of neurodevelopmental disorders.18 As the development of the brain is a unique and continuing process throughout gestation, and after birth, it is expected that there is also a continuity of fetal and neonatal movements, which are an indicator of the developmental processes of the brain.18
The aim of the paper is to present how changing brain structure influences behavior from fetal to neonatal life.
IMPAIRED BRAIN FUNCTION AND NEUROLOGICAL DISABILITY
The structurally or functionally abnormal fetal or neonatal brain may result in neurological disability either pre or postnatally.19-21 Most neurologically impaired infants belong to low-risk pregnancies, as epidemiological studies showed.22-25 Cerebral palsy (CP), as the most prevalent neurologic disability of movement and posture, has several clinical presentations, among which dyskinetic CP is the dominant type of CP in term-born, appropriate-for-gestational-age children with severe neurological impairments, who have frequently experienced adverse perinatal events.22-25 In comparison with typically developing children, individuals with CP have much more issues related to decreased quality of life throughout their lifespan.23 Diagnosis of CP is made for a lifetime, and detecting individuals who are at increased risk either pre or postnatally may be advisable to avoid developmental catastrophe, which may become evident later in life.23 Sometimes, CP relates to heredity, which may increase the risk for its development by 4.8 times if there is one child diagnosed with CP, while with twins, this risk is 29-fold.26-28 Some genetic research found genetically mediated dysregulation of early neuronal connectivity in CP, with some 14% of cases attributed to an excess of damaging de novo or recessive variants.27
Cerebral palsy (CP) is the most common childhood physical disability, with the prevalence in high-income countries of 1.4–2.5/1,000 live births and 2–4/1,000 live births in low-income countries in the entire pediatric population, while in very immature infants, it could be 70–100 times higher.29 Although the etiology of CP is quite unclear, it mostly appears due to acquired or congenital brain developmental disorders.29 CP is the disorder of posture and movement resulting in less prevalent dyskinesia (4%), ataxia (1%), and hypotonia (2%) affecting all four limbs, or most prevalent spasticity (92%) which may be unilateral (hemiplegia in 59%) or bilateral (including diplegia with mostly affecting lower extremities), and tetraplegia and quadriplegia affecting all four limbs and the trunk.29 There are also mixed types of CP which are rare.29 With decreasing chronological age, the brain plasticity of children is increasing, giving the window of opportunity for evidence-based early intervention, which may result in better functional outcomes with fewer complications.29
Most commonly, CP is diagnosed during the second or the first year of life and only in severe cases before the age of 6 months.30 If the symptoms of CP are mild, sometimes it is not easy to make the diagnosis of CP before the age of several years.30 According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, all children should be screened for developmental delay at regular well-baby check-ups at the age of 9, 18, 24, or 30 months, depending on the severity of symptoms.30 Most of the even mild symptoms of developmental delay can be found till the age of 30 months.30 If the screening tests at mentioned chronological age give the reason for concern, the doctor will refer the child for medical and developmental evaluations and early intervention.30 If the child has a high risk of developing CP, the early intervention should start as soon as possible, that is, at a critical developmental time for the plasticity of the developing brain.29
SIGNS OF POSTNATAL NEUROLOGICAL ASSESSMENT USED PRENATALLY
Kurjak et al. by using 4D US and introducing the KANET was at that time convinced that 4D US compared to two-dimensional (2D) US, opened up a new field of fetal neurology by the introduction of a standardized and comprehensive method to evaluate the fetal neurological condition objectively and reproducibly by observation of fetal behavior and GMs.50,51 However, from the postnatal neurological assessment, one can learn that making a neurological diagnosis based only on the assessment of motoric function or even the evaluation of GMs is almost impossible because much more should be learned from neuroimaging and electrophysiological and other diagnostic means.52,53 By postnatal clinical neurologic assessment, clinicians are evaluating many more components like cognitive function, cranial nerves, motor strength, sensation, reflexes, coordination, gait, emotion, learning, self-control, and memory52,53. It is not possible to add all these components to prenatal assessment using only 4D US. Although the KANET has added some components from prenatal neurological assessment proposed by Amiel Tison in ATNAT like cranial sutures, high arched palate, and neurological thumb, which before the introduction of KANET have not been used in prenatal 2D US neurological evaluation based mostly on the assessment of GMs.54,55
From the investigation of Kurjak and ass, it has been pointed out that if the KANET score is normal, then there is a high probability that the development of the infant will be normal, with a very low probability that the child with developmental delay would have been missed.52,53 If the KANET score is abnormal in a high-risk fetus with a positive family history of CP, there is a high probability that postnatal development may appear abnormal.52,53 However, if the KANET score is borderline even in high-risk pregnancy, postnatal development of the child may appear either normal, borderline, or abnormal.52,53 Possibility of a high false-positive rate in those fetuses with borderline KANET would indicate postnatal prospective neurodevelopmental follow-up.52,56,57 Early diagnosis of CP in high-risk infants can be made before the CA of 5 months by using the following predictive tools—term-age MRI (86–89% sensitivity), the Prechtl Qualitative Assessment of GMs (98% sensitivity), and the HINE (90% sensitivity) with the proposed algorithm proposed by Novak et al.57 For the low-risk infants with abnormal KANET scores the protocol should be individualized and follow-up established on a case-by-case basis.52 The future development of fetal neurology should be multidisciplinary with special emphasis on scrutinized postnatal follow-up of infants who had abnormal and borderline KANET scores and were born from high-risk pregnancies.52 The KANET assessment is a very time-consuming procedure, which is considered a screening method to discriminate between normal and abnormal fetal behavior. There has been an investigation on the use of artificial intelligence in the assessment of GMs postnatally, which should be investigated for the prenatal assessment of fetuses by 4D US to decrease the costs and workload of medical professionals.58
Even with 4D US, it is not easy to perform the neurological assessment of the fetus by combining some postnatal signs and an assessment of the quality of GMs. By using a prenatal assessment tool named KANET for neurodevelopmental assessment of the fetus, we are still hardly ready to predict postnatal neurodevelopment even in two extreme situations for fetuses assessed as abnormal or optimal, while for those who are in utero in a gray zone (so-called borderline), the prediction of postnatal development is even more complex.52
Based on the existing investigation, if the KANET score is normal, then there is a high probability that the development of the infant will be normal, with a very low probability that the child with developmental delay would have been missed.52 However, if the KANET score is borderline and especially if abnormal in high-risk pregnancy, the postnatal development of the child may appear abnormal.52 Due to a high false-positive rate in those fetuses, thorough postnatal prospective neurodevelopmental follow-up, especially in high-risk infants with a positive family history of CP, should be advised. For low-risk infants with abnormal KANET scores, the postnatal diagnostic protocol should be individualized, and follow-up should be established on a case-by-case basis.52 Postnatal multidisciplinary approach is advisable with a special accent on detailed postnatal follow-up of infants from high-risk pregnancies who were scored as abnormal and borderline on KANET assessment.52
1. Tubiana M. Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen et la découverte des rayons X [Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen and the discovery of X-rays]. Bull Acad Natl Med 1996;180(1):97–108.
2. Bhattacharyya KB. Godfrey Newbold Hounsfield (1919-2004): the man who revolutionized neuroimaging. Ann Indian Acad Neurol 2016;19(4):448–450. DOI: 10.4103/0972-2327.194414
3. Vasung L, Abaci Turk E, Ferradal SL, et al. Exploring early human brain development with structural and physiological neuroimaging. Neuroimage 2019;187:226–254. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.07.041
4. Pooh RK, Kurjak A. Novel application of three-dimensional HDlive imaging in prenatal diagnosis from the first trimester. J Perinat Med 2015;43(2):147–158. DOI: 10.1515/jpm-2014-0157
5. Poon LC, Sahota DS, Chaemsaithong P, et al. Transvaginal three-dimensional ultrasound assessment of Sylvian fissures at 18-30 weeks’ gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019;54(2):190–198. DOI: 10.1002/uog.20172
6. Kurjak A, Stanojević M, Salihagić-Kadić A, et al. Is four-dimensional (4D) ultrasound entering a new field of fetal psychiatry? Psychiatr Danub 2019;31(2):133–140. DOI: 10.24869/psyd.2019.133
7. Kurjak A, Antsaklis P, Stanojevic M, et al. Multicentric studies of the fetal neurobehavior by KANET test. J Perinat Med 2017;45(6):717–727. DOI: 10.1515/jpm-2016-0409
8. Kurjak A, Antsaklis P, Stanojevic M, et al. Fetal behavior assessed by four-dimensional sonography. Donald Sch J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017;11(2):146–168. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10009-1516
9. Kadic AS, Kurjak A. Cognitive functions of the fetus. Ultraschall Med 2018;39(2):181–189. DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-123469
10. Kurjak A, Antsaklis P. Recent advances in the study of fetal brain structure and function. Sci Art Relig 2022;1(1):81–93. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-11005-0013
11. Stanojevic M, Kurjak A. Continuity from fetal to neonatal behavior: lessons learned and future challenges. Donald Sch J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011;5(2):107–118. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10009-1185
12. Stanojevic M, Kurjak A, Salihagić-Kadić A, et al. Neurobehavioral continuity from fetus to neonate. J Perinat Med 2011;39(2):171–177. DOI: 10.1515/jpm.2011.004
13. Stanojevic M, Zaputovic S, Bosnjak AP. Continuity between fetal and neonatal neurobehavior. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2012;17(6):324–329. DOI: 10.1016/j.siny.2012.06.006
14. Chaudhury S, Sharma V, Kumar V, et al. Activity-dependent synaptic plasticity modulates the critical phase of brain development. Brain Dev 2016;38(4):355–363. DOI: 10.1016/j.braindev.2015.10.008
15. Bethlehem RAI, Seidlitz J, White SR, et al. Brain charts for the human lifespan. Nature 2022;604(7906):525–533. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-022-04554-y
16. Kostović I. Prenatal development of nucleus basalis complex and related fiber systems in man: a histochemical study. Neuroscience 1986;17(4):1047–1077. DOI: 10.1016/0306-4522(86)90077-1
17. Sun SY, Li XW, Cao R, et al. Correlative assembly of subsynaptic nanoscale organizations during development. Front Synaptic Neurosci 2022;14:748184. DOI: 10.3389/fnsyn.2022.748184
18. Kurjak A, Stanojevć M, Barišić LS, Radončić E. Kurjak Antenatal Neurodevelopmental Test (KANET): A Useful Tool for Fetal Neurodevelopmental Assessment. In: Schenker JG, Genazzani AR, Sciarra JJ, Mettler L, Birkhaeuser MH (eds). Clinical Management of Infertility. Reproductive Medicine for Clinicians vol 2. Springer, Cham, 2021:271–301. DOI.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71838-1_19.
19. Ahmed B, Kurjak A, Andonotopo W, et al. Fetal behavioral and structural abnormalities in high risk fetuses assessed by 4D sonography. Ultrasound Rev Obstet Gynecol 2005;5(4):275–287. DOI: 10.3109/14722240500386867
20. Wozniak JR, Riley EP, Charness ME. Clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Lancet Neurol 2019;18(8):760–770. DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30150-4
21. Khan I, Leventhal BL. Developmental delay. StatPearls 2022.
22. Himmelmann K, Hagberg G, Wiklund LM, et al. Dyskinetic cerebral palsy: a population-based study of children born between 1991 and 1998. Dev Med Child Neurol 2007;49(4):246–251. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2007.00246.x
23. Alriksson-Schmidt AI, Ahonen M, Andersen GL, et al. CP-North: living life in the Nordic countries? A retrospective register research protocol on individuals with cerebral palsy and their parents living in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland. BMJ Open 2019;9(10):e024438. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024438
24. Hollung SJ, Hägglund G, Gaston M, et al. Point prevalence and motor function of children and adolescents with cerebral palsy in Scandinavia and Scotland: a CP-North study. Dev Med Child Neurol 2020;63(6):721–728. DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.14764
25. Hägglund G, Hollung SJ, Ahonen M, et al. Treatment of spasticity in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy in Northern Europe: a CP-North registry study. BMC Neurol 2021;21(1):276. DOI: 10.1186/s12883-021-02289-3
26. Hemminki K, Li X, Sundquist K, Sundquist J. High familial risks for cerebral palsy implicate partial heritable aetiology. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007;21(3):235–341. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00798.x
27. Jin SC, Lewis SA, Bakhtiari S, Zeng X, et al. Mutations disrupting neuritogenesis genes confer risk for cerebral palsy. Nat Genet 2021;53(3):412. DOI: 10.1038/s41588-021-00780-8
28. Li N, Zhou P, Tang H, et al. In-depth analysis reveals complex molecular aetiology in a cohort of idiopathic cerebral palsy. Brain 2022;145(1):119–141. DOI: 10.1093/brain/awab209
29. Morgan C, Fetters L, Adde L, et al. Early intervention for children aged 0 to 2 years with or at high risk of cerebral palsy: international clinical practice guideline based on systematic reviews. JAMA Pediatr 2021;175(8):846–858. DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.0878
30. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cerebral Palsy. Published 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/cp/index.html (Accessed January 17, 2023)
31. Palmer FB. Strategies for the early diagnosis of cerebral palsy. J Pediatr 2004;145(2):S8–S11. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2004.05.016
32. Morgan C, Romeo DM, Chorna O, et al. The pooled diagnostic accuracy of neuroimaging, general movements, and neurological examination for diagnosing cerebral palsy early in high-risk infants: a case control study. J Clin Med 2019;8(11):1879. DOI: 10.3390/jcm8111879
33. Apaydın U, Erol E, Yıldız A, et al. The use of neuroimaging, Prechtl’s general movement assessment and the Hammersmith infant neurological examination in determining the prognosis in 2-year-old infants with hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy who were treated with hypothermia. Early Hum Dev 2021;163:105487. DOI: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2021.105487
34. Connors R, Sackett V, Machipisa C, et al. Assessing the utility of neonatal screening assessments in early diagnosis of cerebral palsy in preterm infants. Brain Sci 2022;12(7):847. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12070847
35. Wu YW, Croen LA, Shah SJ, et al. Cerebral palsy in a term population: risk factors and neuroimaging findings. Pediatrics 2006;118;690–697. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2006-0278
36. Aravamuthan BR, Fehlings D, Shetty S, et al. Variability in cerebral palsy diagnosis. Pediatrics 2021;147(2):e2020010066. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2020-010066
37. Aravamuthan BR, Shevell M, Kim et al. Role of child neurologists and neurodevelopmentalists in the diagnosis of cerebral palsy: a survey study. Neurology 2020;95(21):962–972. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000011036
38. Scher MS. “The first thousand days” define a fetal/neonatal neurology program. Front Pediatr 2021;9:683138. DOI: 10.3389/fped.2021.683138
39. Amiel-Tison C. Update of the Amiel-Tison neurologic assessment for the term neonate or at 40 weeks corrected age. Pediatr Neurol 2002;27(3):196–212. DOI: 10.1016/s0887-8994(02)00436-8
40. Gosselin J, Gahagan S, Amiel-Tison C. The Amiel-Tison neurological assessment at term: conceptual and methodological continuity in the course of follow-up. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 2005;11(1):34–51. DOI: 10.1002/mrdd.20049
41. Stahlmann N, Härtel C, Knopp A, et al. Predictive value of neurodevelopmental assessment versus evaluation of general movements for motor outcome in preterm infants with birth weights <1500 g. Neuropediatrics 2007;38(2):91–99. DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-984450
42. Romeo DM, Ricci D, Brogna C, et al. Use of the Hammersmith infant neurological examination in infants with cerebral palsy: a critical review of the literature. Dev Med Child Neurol 2016;58(3):240–245. DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.12876
43. Harpster K, Merhar S, Priyanka Illapani VS, et al. Associations between early structural magnetic resonance imaging, Hammersmith infant neurological examination, and general movements assessment in infants born very preterm. J Pediatr 2021;232:80–86. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.12.056
44. Kurjak A, Stanojevic M, Andonotopo W, et al. Fetal behavior assessed in all three trimesters of normal pregnancy by four-dimensional ultrasonography. Croat Med J 2005;46(5):772–780.
45. Andonotopo W, Medic M, Salihagic-Kadic A, et al. The assessment of fetal behavior in early pregnancy: comparison between 2D and 4D sonographic scanning. J Perinat Med 2005;33(5):406–414. DOI: 10.1515/JPM.2005.073
46. Einspieler C, Prechtl HFR, Bos AF, et al. Prechtl’s method on the qualitative assessment of general movements in preterm, term and young infants. Mac Keith Press, Cambridge, 2004.
47. Bennema AN, Schendelaar P, Seggers J, et al. Predictive value of general movements’ quality in low-risk infants for minor neurological dysfunction and behavioural problems at preschool age. Early Hum Dev 2016;94:19–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2016.01.010
48. Kwong AKL, Fitzgerald TL, Doyle LW, et al. Predictive validity of spontaneous early infant movement for later cerebral palsy: a systematic review. Dev Med Child Neurol 2018;60(5):480–489. DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.13697
49. Seesahai J, Luther M, Church PT, et al. The assessment of general movements in term and late-preterm infants diagnosed with neonatal encephalopathy, as a predictive tool of cerebral palsy by 2 years of age-a scoping review. Syst Rev 2021;10(1):226. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-021-01765-8
50. Kurjak A, Miskovic B, Stanojevic M, et al. New scoring system for fetal neurobehavior assessed by three- and four-dimensional sonography. J Perinat Med 2008;36(1):73–81. DOI: 10.1515/JPM.2008.007
51. Kurjak A, Stanojević M, Predojević M, et al. Neurobehavior in fetal life. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2012;17(6):319–323. DOI: 10.1016/j.siny.2012.06.005
52. Kurjak A, Stanojević M, Spalldi Barišić L, et al. A critical appraisal of Kurjak antenatal neurodevelopmental test: five years of wide clinical use. Donald School J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020;14(4):304–310. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10009-1669
53. Kurjak A, Stanojevic M, Antsaklis P. Recent results and future challenges in the assessment of fetal brain function. Donald School J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2021;15(1):10–37. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10009-1682
54. Prechtl HF. Developmental neurology of the fetus. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol 1988;2(1):21–36. DOI: 10.1016/s0950-3552(88)80061-0
55. Visser GH, Mulder EJ, Prechtl HF. Studies on developmental neurology in the human fetus. Dev Pharmacol Ther 1992;18(3-4):175–183.
56. Visser GH, Mulder EJ, Tessa Ververs FF. Fetal behavioral teratology. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2010;23(Suppl 3):14–16. DOI: 10.3109/14767058.2010.517717
57. Novak I, Morgan C, Adde L, et al. Early, accurate diagnosis and early intervention in cerebral palsy: advances in diagnosis and treatment. JAMA Pediatr 2017;171:897–907. DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.1689
58. Balta D, Kuo H, Wang J, et al. Characterization of infants’ general movements using a commercial rgb-depth sensor and a deep neural network tracking processing tool: an exploratory study. Sensors (Basel) 2022;22(19):7426. DOI: 10.3390/s22197426
© The Author(s). 2023 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and non-commercial reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.