Machine Learning Algorithms for Classification of First‐Trimester Fetal Brain Ultrasound Images
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of machine learning (ML) tools for segmenting and classifying first‐trimester fetal brain ultrasound images. Methods: Two image segmentation methods processed high‐resolution fetal brain images obtained during the nuchal translucency scan: “Statistical Region Merging” (SRM) and “Trainable Weka Segmentation” (TWS), with training and testing sets in the latter. Measurement of the fetal cerebral cortex in original and processed images served to evaluate the performance of the algorithms. Mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) was used as an accuracy index of the segmentation processing. Results: The SRM plugin revealed a total MAPE of 1.71% ± 1.62 SD (standard deviation) and a MAPE of 1.4% ± 1.32 SD and 2.72% ± 2.21 SD for the normal and increased NT groups, respectively. The TWS plugin displayed a MAPE of 1.71% ± 0.59 SD (testing set). There were no significant differences between the training and testing sets after 5‐fold cross‐validation. The images obtained from normal NT fetuses and increased NT fetuses revealed a MAPE of 1.52% ± 1.02 SD and 2.63% ± 1.98 SD. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates the feasibility of using ML algorithms to classify first‐trimester fetal brain ultrasound images and lay the foundation for earlier diagnosis of fetal brain abnormalities.
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?
One study focused on segmentation and measurement of the cerebral cortex from 2D images.
“the final study focused on segmentation and measurement of the cerebral cortex from 2D images.23”
From Artificial intelligence in obstetric ultrasound: A scoping review. (2023) · cites this paper as [23]
AI algorithms in fetal neurosonography enabled the measurement of small anatomical structures such as the fetal cortex in first trimester.
“the measurement of small anatomical structures such as the fetal cortex in first trimester [88]”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 25 · Cited by 27
- Authors
- Gofer, S., Haik, O., Bardin, R., Gilboa, Y., & Perlman, S.
- Affiliations
- Tel Aviv University (IL)
- Independent Researcher
- Corresponding author
- Perlman, Sharon
- Venue
- Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2021-10-28
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1773-1779
- ISSN
- 0278-4297 (ISSN-L)
- 1550-9613
- OpenAlex
- W3209981244
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 1.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Fetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
- Keywords
- fetal brain ultrasound, nuchal translucency, statistical region merging, image segmentation, fetal cerebral cortex, fetal brain anomalies, automatic classification, prenatal diagnosis
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Brain, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Nuchal Translucency Measurement
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