Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32576905›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Evaluation of deep convolutional neural networks for automatic classification of common maternal fetal ultrasound planes.

Xavier P Burgos-Artizzu, David Coronado-Gutiérrez, Brenda Valenzuela-Alcaraz, Elisenda Bonet-Carne, Elisenda Eixarch, Fatima Crispi, Eduard Gratacós

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 67 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

67 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

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 http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9681-5404
David Coronado-GutiérrezBCNatal - Barcelona Center for Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine (Hospital Clínic and Hospital Sant Joan de Deu, University of Barcelona), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1607-5130
Brenda Valenzuela-AlcarazBCNatal - Barcelona Center for Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine (Hospital Clínic and Hospital Sant Joan de Deu, University of Barcelona), Barcelona, Spain.
Elisenda Bonet-CarneBCNatal - Barcelona Center for Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine (Hospital Clínic and Hospital Sant Joan de Deu, University of Barcelona), Barcelona, Spain.
Elisenda EixarchBCNatal - Barcelona Center for Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine (Hospital Clínic and Hospital Sant Joan de Deu, University of Barcelona), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7379-9608
Fatima CrispiBCNatal - Barcelona Center for Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine (Hospital Clínic and Hospital Sant Joan de Deu, University of Barcelona), Barcelona, Spain.
Eduard GratacósBCNatal - Barcelona Center for Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine (Hospital Clínic and Hospital Sant Joan de Deu, University of Barcelona), Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The goal of this study was to evaluate the maturity of current Deep Learning classification techniques for their application in a real maternal-fetal clinical environment. A large dataset of routinely acquired maternal-fetal screening ultrasound images (which will be made publicly available) was collected from two different hospitals by several operators and ultrasound machines. All images were manually labeled by an expert maternal fetal clinician. Images were divided into 6 classes: four of the most widely used fetal anatomical planes (Abdomen, Brain, Femur and Thorax), the mother's cervix (widely used for prematurity screening) and a general category to include any other less common image plane. Fetal brain images were further categorized into the 3 most common fetal brain planes (Trans-thalamic, Trans-cerebellum, Trans-ventricular) to judge fine grain categorization performance. The final dataset is comprised of over 12,400 images from 1,792 patients, making it the largest ultrasound dataset to date. We then evaluated a wide variety of state-of-the-art deep Convolutional Neural Networks on this dataset and analyzed results in depth, comparing the computational models to research technicians, which are the ones currently performing the task daily. Results indicate for the first time that computational models have similar performance compared to humans when classifying common planes in human fetal examination. However, the dataset leaves the door open on future research to further improve results, especially on fine-grained plane categorization.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBrainFemaleFetusHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMachine LearningNeural Networks, ComputerPregnancyUltrasonography, Prenatal

Identifiers

PMID32576905
PMCPMC7311420

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.