Deep learning-based plane pose regression in obstetric ultrasound
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: In obstetric ultrasound (US) scanning, the learner's ability to mentally build a three-dimensional (3D) map of the fetus from a two-dimensional (2D) US image represents a major challenge in skill acquisition. We aim to build a US plane localisation system for 3D visualisation, training, and guidance without integrating additional sensors. METHODS: We propose a regression convolutional neural network (CNN) using image features to estimate the six-dimensional pose of arbitrarily oriented US planes relative to the fetal brain centre. The network was trained on synthetic images acquired from phantom 3D US volumes and fine-tuned on real scans. Training data was generated by slicing US volumes into imaging planes in Unity at random coordinates and more densely around the standard transventricular (TV) plane. RESULTS: With phantom data, the median errors are 0.90 mm/1.17[Formula: see text] and 0.44 mm/1.21[Formula: see text] for random planes and planes close to the TV one, respectively. With real data, using a different fetus with the same gestational age (GA), these errors are 11.84 mm/25.17[Formula: see text]. The average inference time is 2.97 ms per plane. CONCLUSION: The proposed network reliably localises US planes within the fetal brain in phantom data and successfully generalises pose regression for an unseen fetal brain from a similar GA as in training. Future development will expand the prediction to volumes of the whole fetus and assess its potential for vision-based, freehand US-assisted navigation when acquiring standard fetal planes.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
Di Vece et al. was the only study to estimate the 6D poses of US planes combining common 3D planes with rotation around the brain center.
“and was the only study to estimate the 6D poses of US planes combining common 3D planes with rotation around the brain center [82].”
From Evolving the Era of 5D Ultrasound? A Systematic Literature Review on the Applications for Artificial Intelligence Ultrasound Imaging in Obstetrics and Gynecology (2023) · cites this paper as [82]
The Introduction (page unavailable) calls this, to the authors’ knowledge, the first work to estimate a US plane’s 6D pose—3D translation and rotation—relative to the fetal brain centre. That supports the core claim, but the source describes arbitrarily oriented planes, not a method combining “common 3D planes” with rotation around the centre. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredDi Vece et al.'s method used a 23-week synthetic fetal phantom for system development.
“In particular, the method by Di Vece et al. used a 23-week synthetic fetal phantom for system development”
Yeung et al., Namburete et al., Yu et al., and Di Vece et al. proposed a plane localization system as a 3D reference space for locating 2D planes to improve acquisition of standard planes and facilitate anatomical orientation.
“The establishment of a plane localization system as a 3D reference space for locating 2D planes was proposed by Yeung et al., Namburete et al., Yu et al., and Di Vece et al. for improving the acquisition of standard planes and facilitating anatomical orientation for sonographers [78,80,82,83].”
Studies described the need for matching GA of US images in algorithms to address heterogeneity in brain images from different GA.
“To address the heterogeneity in brain images from different GA, studies described the need for matching GA of US images in algorithms [82,94].”
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 27 · Cited by 17
- Authors
- Di Vece, C., Dromey, B., Vasconcelos, F., David, A. L., Peebles, D., & Stoyanov, D.
- Affiliations
- Wellcome / EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (GB)
- UCL Biomedical Research Centre (GB)
- ORCID
- Venue
- International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery
- Published
- 2022-04-30
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 833-839
- ISSN
- 1861-6410 (ISSN-L)
- 1861-6429
- PMC
- PMC9110476
- OpenAlex
- W4225144609
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 1.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (203145/Z/16/Z)
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/P027938/1, EP/R004080/1, EP/P012841/1)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Ultrasound in Clinical Applications
- Keywords
- prenatal ultrasound, fetal brain, synthetic ultrasound images, ultrasound phantoms
- MeSH terms
- Deep Learning, Female, Gestational Age, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Pregnancy, Ultrasonography, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Neural Networks, Computer, Imaging, Three-Dimensional
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