Cited by 18Prenatal Screening and DiagnosticsUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsReliability and Agreement in Measurement

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

A Novel Technique for the Semi-Automated Measurement of Embryo Volume: An Intraobserver Reliability Study

Sur, Shyamaly D., Jayaprakasan, Kannamannadiar, Jones, Nia W., Clewes, Jeanette, Winter, Beverley, Cash, Nicola, Campbell, Bruce, Raine-Fenning, Nicholas J.·2010·Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology

Abstract

The aim was to assess intraobserver reliability of a new semi-automated technique of embryo volumetry. Power calculations suggested 46 subjects with viable, singleton pregnancies were required for reliability analysis. Crown rump length (CRL) of each embryo was analyzed using 2-D and a 3-D dataset acquired using transvaginal ultrasound. Virtual organ computer-aided analysis (VOCAL) was used to calculate volume of gestation sac (GSV) and yolk sac (YSV) and SonoAVC (sonography-based automated volume count) was used to quantify fluid volume (FV). Embryo volume was calculated by subtracting FV and YSV from GSV. Each dataset was measured twice. Reliability was assessed using Bland-Altman plots and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Fifty-two datasets were analyzed. Median embryo volume was 1.8 cm(3) (0.1 to 8.1 cm(3)); median gestational age 7 + 4 weeks; median CRL 13 mm (2 to 29 mm). Mean difference of embryo volume measurements was 0.1cm(3) (limits of agreement [LOA] -0.3 to 0.4 cm(3)); multiples of mean (MoM) 0.38; mean difference of CRL measurements 0.3 mm (LOA -1.4 to 2.0 mm), MoM = 0.26. ICC for embryo volume was 0.999 (95%CI 0.998 to 0.999), confirming excellent intraobserver agreement. ICC for CRL was 0.996 (95%CI 0.991 to 0.998). Regression analysis showed good correlation between embryo volume and CRL (R(2) = 0.60). The new semi-automated 3-D technique provides reliable measures of embryo volume. Further work is required to assess the validity of this technique.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2010.03.006

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 27 · Cited by 18

Metadata

Authors
Sur, S. D., Jayaprakasan, K., Jones, N. W., Clewes, J., Winter, B., Cash, N., Campbell, B., & Raine-Fenning, N. J.
Affiliations
  • Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (GB)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Sur, Shyamaly D.
Venue
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-05
Volume
36
Issue
5
Pages
719-725
ISSN
0301-5629 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1975859604
Cited by
18
References
27
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Ultrasound in Clinical Applications
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
embryo volume, intra-rater reliability, crown-rump length, gestational sac volume, yolk sac volume, 3D ultrasound, VOCAL, early pregnancy, transvaginal ultrasound
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Embryo, Mammalian, Female, Humans, Image Enhancement, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Male, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, 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