A mobile-optimized artificial intelligence system for gestational age and fetal malpresentation assessment
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Background Fetal ultrasound is an important component of antenatal care, but shortage of adequately trained healthcare workers has limited its adoption in low-to-middle-income countries. This study investigated the use of artificial intelligence for fetal ultrasound in under-resourced settings. Methods Blind sweep ultrasounds, consisting of six freehand ultrasound sweeps, were collected by sonographers in the USA and Zambia, and novice operators in Zambia. We developed artificial intelligence (AI) models that used blind sweeps to predict gestational age (GA) and fetal malpresentation. AI GA estimates and standard fetal biometry estimates were compared to a previously established ground truth, and evaluated for difference in absolute error. Fetal malpresentation (non-cephalic vs cephalic) was compared to sonographer assessment. On-device AI model run-times were benchmarked on Android mobile phones. Results Here we show that GA estimation accuracy of the AI model is non-inferior to standard fetal biometry estimates (error difference −1.4 ± 4.5 days, 95% CI −1.8, −0.9, n = 406). Non-inferiority is maintained when blind sweeps are acquired by novice operators performing only two of six sweep motion types. Fetal malpresentation AUC-ROC is 0.977 (95% CI, 0.949, 1.00, n = 613), sonographers and novices have similar AUC-ROC. Software run-times on mobile phones for both diagnostic models are less than 3 s after completion of a sweep. Conclusions The gestational age model is non-inferior to the clinical standard and the fetal malpresentation model has high AUC-ROCs across operators and devices. Our AI models are able to run on-device, without internet connectivity, and provide feedback scores to assist in upleveling the capabilities of lightly trained ultrasound operators in low resource settings.
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?
AI models are able to enhance image acquisition and diagnostic accuracy in point-of-care US devices, which is of particular significance for application in low-resource settings and medically underserved areas.
“AI models are additionally able to enhance image acquisition and diagnostic accuracy in point-of-care US devices, which is of particular significance for application in low-resource settings and medically underserved areas [34,145,148,199].”
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 [145]
The Discussion (page unavailable) describes a simplified acquisition protocol and real-time quality feedback for novice operators using affordable mobile devices in low-resource settings. The Results (page unavailable) report non-inferior gestational-age estimation and high accuracy for fetal malpresentation detection. The paper does not demonstrate a general improvement in diagnostic accuracy over standard ultrasound assessment, so the claim’s broader wording overstates its findings. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe purpose of the FAMLI studies was the successful establishment of an AI algorithm for GA estimation from simplified blind US sweeps of US novices in low-resource countries.
“The purpose of these studies, which were based on US data from the US and Zambia, was the successful establishment of an AI algorithm for GA estimation from simplified blind US sweeps of US novices in low-resource countries [144,145,152,153].”
A benefit of GA AI models was the possibility for application in low-resource countries.
“The benefits of the GA AI models were the possibility for application in low-resource countries [144,145,148,149,152]”
A benefit of GA AI models was application even without internet connectivity.
“even without internet connectivity [145]”
Because most studies use data from healthy subjects or healthy fetuses, miscalculation or misdiagnosis may occur in case of pathologies.
“As most of the studies are performed with data obtained from healthy subjects or healthy fetuses, miscalculation or misdiagnosis may occur in case of pathologies [35,95,145].”
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 [145]
The Methods (Evaluation; page unavailable) describe the study datasets but do not say they comprised only healthy subjects or fetuses. The Discussion (page unavailable) notes limited data for certain gestational ages and fetal presentations, but does not address whether pathologies could cause miscalculation or misdiagnosis. Searches for healthy subjects, fetal pathology, and related exclusion criteria found no passage establishing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.73)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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 47
- Authors
- Gomes, R. G., Vwalika, B., Lee, C., Willis, A., Sieniek, M., Price, J. T., Chen, C., Kasaro, M. P., Taylor, J. A., Stringer, E. M., McKinney, S. M., Sindano, N., Dahl, G. E., Goodnight, W., Gilmer, J., Chi, B. H., Lau, C., Spitz, T., Saensuksopa, T., Liu, K., Tiyasirichokchai, T., Wong, J., Pilgrim, R., Uddin, A., Corrado, G., Peng, L., Chou, K., Tse, D., Stringer, J. S. A., & Shetty, S.
- Affiliations
- Google (United States) (US)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- University of Zambia (ZM)
- Corresponding author
- Gomes, Ryan G.
- Uddin, Akib
- Tse, Daniel
- Shetty, Shravya
- ORCID
- Gomes, Ryan G.
- Vwalika, Bellington
- Sieniek, Marcin
- Price, Joan T.
- Chen, Christina
- Kasaro, Margaret P.
- Taylor, James A.
- Stringer, Elizabeth M.
- McKinney, Scott Mayer
- Sindano, Ntazana
- Dahl, George E.
- Goodnight, William
- Gilmer, Justin
- Lau, Charles
- Spitz, Terry
- Saensuksopa, T.
- Pilgrim, Rory
- Uddin, Akib
- Corrado, Greg
- Peng, Lily
- Chou, Katherine
- Tse, Daniel
- Stringer, Jeffrey S. A.
- Shetty, Shravya
- Venue
- Communications Medicine
- Published
- 2022-10-11
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 128-128
- ISSN
- 2730-664X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9553916
- OpenAlex
- W4304190238
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 2.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Communications Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1191684, INV003266)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Ultrasound in Clinical Applications
- Keywords
- gestational age estimation, fetal malpresentation, prenatal ultrasound, mobile health, resource-limited settings, fetal biometry, prenatal care, Zambia
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