Cited by 179Prenatal Screening and DiagnosticsPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesMaternal and Neonatal Healthcare

Ultrasound‐based gestational‐age estimation in late pregnancy

Open access
Papageorghiou, A. T., Kemp, B., Stones, W., Ohuma, E. O., Kennedy, S. H., Purwar, M., Salomon, L. J., Altman, D. G. +12 more·2016·Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

Objective: Accurate gestational‐age (GA) estimation, preferably by ultrasound measurement of fetal crown–rump length before 14 weeks' gestation, is an important component of high‐quality antenatal care. The objective of this study was to determine how GA can best be estimated by fetal ultrasound for women who present for the first time late in pregnancy with uncertain or unknown menstrual dates. Methods: INTERGROWTH‐21 st was a large, prospective, multicenter, population‐based project performed in eight geographically defined urban populations. One of its principal components, the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study, aimed to develop international fetal growth standards. Each participant had their certain menstrual dates confirmed by first‐trimester ultrasound examination. Fetal head circumference (HC), biparietal diameter (BPD), occipitofrontal diameter (OFD), abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL) were measured every 5 weeks from 14 weeks' gestation until delivery. For each participant, a single, randomly selected ultrasound examination was used to explore all candidate biometric variables and permutations to build models to predict GA. Regression equations were ranked based upon minimization of the mean prediction error, goodness of fit and model complexity. An automated machine learning algorithm, the Genetic Algorithm, was adapted to evaluate > 64 000 potential polynomial equations as predictors. Results: Of the 4607 eligible women, 4321 (94%) had a pregnancy without major complications and delivered a live singleton without congenital malformations. After other exclusions (missing measurements in GA window and outliers), the final sample comprised 4229 women. Two skeletal measures, HC and FL, produced the best GA prediction, given by the equation log e(GA) = 0.03243 × (log e(HC))2 + 0.001644 × FL × log e(HC) + 3.813. When FL was not available, the best equation based on HC alone was log e(GA) = 0.05970 × (log e(HC))2 + 0.000000006409 × (HC)3 + 3.3258. The estimated uncertainty of GA prediction (half width 95% interval) was 6–7 days at 14 weeks' gestation, 12–14 days at 26 weeks' gestation and > 14 days in the third trimester. The addition of FL to the HC model led to improved prediction intervals compared with using HC alone, but no further improvement in prediction was afforded by adding AC, BPD or OFD. Equations that included other measurements (BPD, OFD and AC) did not perform better. Conclusions: Among women initiating antenatal care late in pregnancy, a single set of ultrasound measurements combining HC and FL in the second trimester can be used to estimate GA with reasonable accuracy. We recommend this tool for underserved populations but considerable efforts should be implemented to improve early initiation of antenatal care worldwide. © 2016 Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/uog.15894

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Recent evidence from the INTERGROWTH-21st study indicates that HC alone or HC plus FL may be the most accurate predictor of gestational age after 14 weeks.

    “Although head measurements (BPD and HC) and FL have all been used in the past, recent evidence from the INTERGROWTH-21 st study indicates that HC alone or HC plus FL may be the most accurate predictor of gestational age after 14weeks 19 .”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 29 · Cited by 179

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [7]Hughes R, Aitken E, Anderson J, Barry C, Benton M, Elliot J. Antenatal Care. Routine Care for the Healthy Pregnant Woman. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE clinical guideline 62. RCOG Press: London, 2008.

Authors
Papageorghiou, A. T., Kemp, B., Stones, W., Ohuma, E. O., Kennedy, S. H., Purwar, M., Salomon, L. J., Altman, D. G., Noble, J. A., Bertino, E., Gravett, M. G., Pang, R., Cheikh Ismail, L., Barros, F. C., Lambert, A., Jaffer, Y. A., Victora, C. G., Bhutta, Z. A., Villar, J., & for the International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21 Century (INTERGROWTH‐21st)
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of St Andrews (GB)
  • Nagpur INTERGROWTH‐21<sup>st</sup> Research Centre Ketkar Hospital Nagpur India
  • Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades (FR)
  • University of Turin (IT)
  • Global Alliance to Prevent Prematurity and Stillbirth (US)
  • Peking University (CN)
  • Nuffield Department of Obstetrics &amp; Gynaecology and Oxford Maternal &amp; Perinatal Health Institute, Green Templeton College University of Oxford Oxford UK
  • Universidade Católica de Pelotas (BR)
  • Ministry of Health (OM)
  • Universidade Federal de Pelotas (BR)
  • Aga Khan University (PK)
Corresponding author
Papageorghiou, A. T.
Venue
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-12
Volume
48
Issue
6
Pages
719-726
ISSN
  • 0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-0705
OpenAlex
W2277643888
Cited by
179
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 5
FWCI
16.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • St George's Online Research Archive (St George's University of London) (acceptedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • St Andrews Research Repository (St Andrews Research Repository) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to the University of Oxford
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
Keywords
gestational age estimation, late pregnancy, fetal head circumference, femur length, crown-rump length, genetic algorithm, polynomial regression, fetal biometry, INTERGROWTH-21st, prenatal care, prediction error, first-trimester ultrasound, fetal growth standards, singleton pregnancy, second trimester
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Adult, Anthropometry, Female, Gestational Age, Head, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Maternal Age, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Prospective Studies, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Crown-Rump Length, Fetal Development

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