Cited by 27Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesFetal and Pediatric Neurological DisordersPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics

Machine Learning Algorithms for Classification of First‐Trimester Fetal Brain Ultrasound Images

Gofer, Stav, Haik, Oren, Bardin, Ron, Gilboa, Yinon, Perlman, Sharon·2022·Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

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

Crossref · 10.1002/jum.15860

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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