Cited by 17Congenital Heart Disease StudiesArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics

Diagnosis of fetal total anomalous pulmonary venous connection based on the post-left atrium space ratio using artificial intelligence

Wang, Xin, Yang, Ting‐Yang, Zhang, Ying‐Ying, Liu, Xiao‐Wei, Zhang, Ye, Sun, Lin, Gu, Xiao‐Yan, Chen, Zhuo +5 more·2022·Prenatal Diagnosis

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To explore whether the post-left atrium space (PLAS) ratio would be useful for prenatal diagnosis of total anomalous pulmonary venous connection (TAPVC) using echocardiography and artificial intelligence. METHODS: We retrospectively included 642 frames of four-chamber views from 319 fetuses (32 with TAPVC and 287 without TAPVC) in end-systolic and end-diastolic periods with multiple apex directions. The average gestational age was 25.6 ± 2.7 weeks. No other cardiac or extracardiac malformations were observed. The dataset was divided into a training set (n = 540; 48 with TAPVC and 492 without TAPVC) and test set (n = 102; 20 with TAPVC and 82 without TAPVC). The PLAS ratio was defined as the ratio of the epicardium-descending aortic distance to the center of the heart-descending aortic distance. Supervised learning was used in DeepLabv3+, FastFCN, PSPNet, and DenseASPP segmentation models. The area under the curve (AUC) was used on the test set. RESULTS: Expert annotations showed that this ratio was not related to the period or apex direction. It was higher in the TAPVC group than in the control group detected by the expert and the four models. The AUC of expert annotations, DeepLabv3+, FastFCN, PSPNet, and DenseASPP were 0.977, 0.941, 0.925, 0.856, and 0.887, respectively. CONCLUSION: Segmentation models achieve good diagnostic accuracy for TAPVC based on the PLAS ratio.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pd.6220

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, X., Yang, T., Zhang, Y., Liu, X., Zhang, Y., Sun, L., Gu, X., Chen, Z., Guo, Y., Xue, C., Han, J., Zhu, H., & He, Y.
Affiliations
  • Capital Medical University (CN)
  • State Key Laboratory of Software Development Environment Beihang University Beijing China
  • Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Big Data‐Based Precision Medicine Beihang University Beijing China
  • Echocardiography Medical Center Beijing Anzhen Hospital Capital Medical University Beijing China
Venue
Prenatal Diagnosis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-08-19
Volume
42
Issue
10
Pages
1323-1331
ISSN
  • 0197-3851 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0223
OpenAlex
W4292374064
Cited by
17
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4
FWCI
2.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Prenatal Diagnosis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 82170301, and No. 82100322)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Congenital Heart Disease Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Keywords
total anomalous pulmonary venous connection, fetal echocardiography, left atrium, deep learning segmentation, four-chamber view
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Female, Fetus, Heart Atria, Humans, Infant, Pregnancy, Pulmonary Veins, Retrospective Studies, Scimitar Syndrome, Ultrasonography, Prenatal

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