Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30760806›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Evaluation of an improved tool for non-invasive prediction of neonatal respiratory morbidity based on fully automated fetal lung ultrasound analysis.

Xavier P Burgos-Artizzu, Álvaro Perez-Moreno, David Coronado-Gutierrez, Eduard Gratacos, Montse Palacio

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Artificial intelligence and digital technologies transforming neonatal respiratory assessment: a scoping review.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Applications of artificial intelligence in obstetrics.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2023
    Article
  9. Assessment of the fetal lungs in utero.American journal of obstetrics & gynecology MFM · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xavier P Burgos-ArtizzuBCNatal - Barcelona Center for Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine (Hospital Clínic and Hospital Sant Joan de Deu, University of Barcelona), Barcelona, Spain. xpburgos@clinic.cat.ORCID 0000-0001-9681-5404
Álvaro Perez-MorenoTransmural Biotech S. L. Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
David Coronado-GutierrezBCNatal - Barcelona Center for Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine (Hospital Clínic and Hospital Sant Joan de Deu, University of Barcelona), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1607-5130
Eduard GratacosBCNatal - Barcelona Center for Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine (Hospital Clínic and Hospital Sant Joan de Deu, University of Barcelona), Barcelona, Spain.
Montse PalacioBCNatal - Barcelona Center for Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine (Hospital Clínic and Hospital Sant Joan de Deu, University of Barcelona), Barcelona, Spain.
Hospital Sant Joan de Déu Barcelona · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of a new version of quantusFLM®, a software tool for prediction of neonatal respiratory morbidity (NRM) by ultrasound, which incorporates a fully automated fetal lung delineation based on Deep Learning techniques. A set of 790 fetal lung ultrasound images obtained at 24 + 0-38 + 6 weeks' gestation was evaluated. Perinatal outcomes and the occurrence of NRM were recorded. quantusFLM® version 3.0 was applied to all images to automatically delineate the fetal lung and predict NRM risk. The test was compared with the same technology but using a manual delineation of the fetal lung, and with a scenario where only gestational age was available. The software predicted NRM with a sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value of 71.0%, 94.7%, 67.9%, and 95.4%, respectively, with an accuracy of 91.5%. The accuracy for predicting NRM obtained with the same texture analysis but using a manual delineation of the lung was 90.3%, and using only gestational age was 75.6%. To sum up, automated and non-invasive software predicted NRM with a performance similar to that reported for tests based on amniotic fluid analysis and much greater than that of gestational age alone.

Indexed as

Amniotic FluidDeep LearningFemaleFetal MovementGestational AgeHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedInfant, NewbornInfant, Small for Gestational AgeLungPregnancyPregnancy Trimester, ThirdProspective StudiesRespirationSensitivity and SpecificityUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID30760806
PMCPMC6374419
OpenAlexW2923700253

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.