Cited by 24Neonatal Respiratory Health ResearchArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

Establish a normal fetal lung gestational age grading model and explore the potential value of deep learning algorithms in fetal lung maturity evaluation

Open access
Xia, Tai-Hui, Tan, Man, Li, Jing-Hua, Wang, Jing-Jing, Wu, Qing-Qing, Kong, De-Xing·2021·Chinese Medical Journal

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prenatal evaluation of fetal lung maturity (FLM) is a challenge, and an effective non-invasive method for prenatal assessment of FLM is needed. The study aimed to establish a normal fetal lung gestational age (GA) grading model based on deep learning (DL) algorithms, validate the effectiveness of the model, and explore the potential value of DL algorithms in assessing FLM. METHODS: A total of 7013 ultrasound images obtained from 1023 normal pregnancies between 20 and 41 + 6 weeks were analyzed in this study. There were no pregnancy-related complications that affected fetal lung development, and all infants were born without neonatal respiratory diseases. The images were divided into three classes based on the gestational week: class I: 20 to 29 + 6 weeks, class II: 30 to 36 + 6 weeks, and class III: 37 to 41 + 6 weeks. There were 3323, 2142, and 1548 images in each class, respectively. First, we performed a pre-processing algorithm to remove irrelevant information from each image. Then, a convolutional neural network was designed to identify different categories of fetal lung ultrasound images. Finally, we used ten-fold cross-validation to validate the performance of our model. This new machine learning algorithm automatically extracted and classified lung ultrasound image information related to GA. This was used to establish a grading model. The performance of the grading model was assessed using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: A normal fetal lung GA grading model was established and validated. The sensitivity of each class in the independent test set was 91.7%, 69.8%, and 86.4%, respectively. The specificity of each class in the independent test set was 76.8%, 90.0%, and 83.1%, respectively. The total accuracy was 83.8%. The area under the curve (AUC) of each class was 0.982, 0.907, and 0.960, respectively. The micro-average AUC was 0.957, and the macro-average AUC was 0.949. CONCLUSIONS: The normal fetal lung GA grading model could accurately identify ultrasound images of the fetal lung at different GAs, which can be used to identify cases of abnormal lung development due to gestational diseases and evaluate lung maturity after antenatal corticosteroid therapy. The results indicate that DL algorithms can be used as a non-invasive method to predict FLM.

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 · 10.1097/cm9.0000000000001547

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xia, T.-H., Tan, M., Li, J.-H., Wang, J.-J., Wu, Q.-Q., & Kong, D.-X.
Affiliations
  • Capital Medical University (CN)
  • Zhejiang University (CN)
  • Department of Ultrasound, Beijing Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100026, China
  • The School of Mathematical Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310058, China.
Venue
Chinese Medical Journal
Published
2021-07-01
Volume
134
Issue
15
Pages
1828-1837
ISSN
  • 0366-6999 (ISSN-L)
  • 2542-5641
OpenAlex
W3179154458
Cited by
24
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4
FWCI
2.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Chinese Medical Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Neonatal Respiratory Health Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Keywords
fetal lung maturity, fetal lung ultrasound, deep learning, convolutional neural networks, gestational age estimation, fetal lung development, antenatal corticosteroids
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Algorithms, Female, Gestational Age, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Lung, Pregnancy, Neural Networks, Computer

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