Cited by 35Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationAdvanced Neural Network Applications

Ensemble Transfer Learning for Fetal Head Analysis: From Segmentation to Gestational Age and Weight Prediction

Open access
Alzubaidi, Mahmood, Agus, Marco, Shah, Uzair, Makhlouf, Michel, Alyafei, Khalid, Househ, Mowafa·2022·Diagnostics

Abstract

Ultrasound is one of the most commonly used imaging methodologies in obstetrics to monitor the growth of a fetus during the gestation period. Specifically, ultrasound images are routinely utilized to gather fetal information, including body measurements, anatomy structure, fetal movements, and pregnancy complications. Recent developments in artificial intelligence and computer vision provide new methods for the automated analysis of medical images in many domains, including ultrasound images. We present a full end-to-end framework for segmenting, measuring, and estimating fetal gestational age and weight based on two-dimensional ultrasound images of the fetal head. Our segmentation framework is based on the following components: (i) eight segmentation architectures (UNet, UNet Plus, Attention UNet, UNet 3+, TransUNet, FPN, LinkNet, and Deeplabv3) were fine-tuned using lightweight network EffientNetB0, and (ii) a weighted voting method for building an optimized ensemble transfer learning model (ETLM). On top of that, ETLM was used to segment the fetal head and to perform analytic and accurate measurements of circumference and seven other values of the fetal head, which we incorporated into a multiple regression model for predicting the week of gestational age and the estimated fetal weight (EFW). We finally validated the regression model by comparing our result with expert physician and longitudinal references. We evaluated the performance of our framework on the public domain dataset HC18: we obtained 98.53% mean intersection over union (mIoU) as the segmentation accuracy, overcoming the state-of-the-art methods; as measurement accuracy, we obtained a 1.87 mm mean absolute difference (MAD). Finally we obtained a 0.03% mean square error (MSE) in predicting the week of gestational age and 0.05% MSE in predicting EFW.

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 · 10.3390/diagnostics12092229

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?

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 74 · Cited by 35

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. [12]Ciurte A. Bresson X. Cuadra M.B. A semi-supervised patch-based approach for segmentation of fetal ultrasound imaging Proceedings of the Challenge US: Biometric Measurements from Fetal Ultrasound Images, ISBI 2012 Barcelona, Spain 2–5 May 2012 5 7
  2. [13]Ponomarev G.V. Gelfand M.S. Kazanov M.D. A multilevel thresholding combined with edge detection and shape-based recognition for segmentation of fetal ultrasound images Proceedings of the Challenge US: Biometric Measurements from Fetal Ultrasound Images, ISBI 2012 Barcelona, Spain 2–5 May 2012 17 19
  3. [14]Stebbing R.V. McManigle J.E. A boundary fragment model for head segmentation in fetal ultrasound Proceedings of the Challenge US: Biometric Measurements from Fetal Ultrasound Images, ISBI Barcelona, Spain 2–5 May 2012 9 11
  4. [59]Yang Y. Lv H. Discussion of Ensemble Learning under the Era of Deep Learning arXiv 2021 2101.08387
  5. [62]Oktay O. Schlemper J. Le Folgoc L. Lee M. Heinrich M. Misawa K. Mori K. McDonagh S. Y Hammerla N. Kainz B. Attention U-Net: Learning Where to Look for the Pancreas arXiv 2018 1804.03999
  6. [68]Goodfellow I. Bengio Y. Courville A. Deep Learning MIT Press Cambridge, MA, USA 2016
  7. [79]Voglis C. Lagaris I. A rectangular trust region dogleg approach for unconstrained and bound constrained nonlinear optimization Proceedings of the WSEAS International Conference on Applied Mathematics Corfu Island, Greece 17–19 August 2004 Volume 7

Authors
Alzubaidi, M., Agus, M., Shah, U., Makhlouf, M., Alyafei, K., & Househ, M.
Affiliations
  • Hamad bin Khalifa University (QA)
  • Sidra Medical and Research Center (QA)
Corresponding author
  • Alzubaidi, Mahmood
  • Househ, Mowafa
Venue
Diagnostics
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-09-15
Volume
12
Issue
9
Pages
2229
ISSN
2075-4418 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4296104365
Cited by
35
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 1
FWCI
2.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diagnostics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Qatar National Library
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
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
fetal head segmentation, ensemble transfer learning, gestational age estimation, estimated fetal weight, prenatal ultrasound, fetal biometry, weighted voting, U-Net variants, multiple linear regression

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