Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36249461›Full record

ArticleCommunications medicine2022

A mobile-optimized artificial intelligence system for gestational age and fetal malpresentation assessment.

Ryan G Gomes, Bellington Vwalika, Chace Lee, Angelica Willis, Marcin Sieniek, Joan T Price, Christina Chen, Margaret P Kasaro, James A Taylor, Elizabeth M Stringer and 20 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Real-time gestational-age estimation at 11-13 weeks using artificial intelligence on non-targeted ultrasound sweeps.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026
    Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The FemTech revolution: Unlocking the potential of new technology for optimizing pregnancy outcomes in low- and middle-income countries and remote areas.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Emerging applications of artificial intelligence for obstetric ultrasound: A scoping review.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Using artificial intelligence as a technological tool in gynecologic and obstetric health: A narrative literature review.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

30 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Ryan G Gomes *Google Health, Palo Alto, CA USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4105-3910
Bellington Vwalika *Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Zambia School of Medicine, Lusaka, Zambia.
Chace Lee *Google Health, Palo Alto, CA USA.
Angelica Willis *Google Health, Palo Alto, CA USA.
Marcin SieniekGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA USA.
Joan T PriceDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC USA.
Christina ChenGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA USA.
Margaret P KasaroDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Zambia School of Medicine, Lusaka, Zambia.
James A TaylorGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA USA.
Elizabeth M StringerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC USA.
Scott Mayer McKinneyGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0707-7169
Ntazana SindanoUNC Global Projects-Zambia, LLC, Lusaka, Zambia.
George E DahlGoogle Research, Mountain View, CA USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0083-844X
William GoodnightDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Zambia School of Medicine, Lusaka, Zambia.
Justin GilmerGoogle Research, Mountain View, CA USA.
Benjamin H ChiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC USA.
Charles LauGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3136-9711
Terry SpitzGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9791-3767
T SaensuksopaGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA USA.
Kris LiuGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA USA.
Tiya TiyasirichokchaiGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA USA.
Jonny WongGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA USA.
Rory PilgrimGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA USA.
Akib UddinGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA USA.
Greg CorradoGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA USA.
Lily PengGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA USA.
Katherine ChouGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA USA.
Daniel TseGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5315-8539
Jeffrey S A StringerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9590-7216
Shravya ShettyGoogle Health, Palo Alto, CA USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3783-3172
Google (United States) · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USUniversity of Zambia · ZMNational HIV/AIDS/STI/TB Council · ZM

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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, 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.

Indexed as

Health careMedical research

Identifiers

PMID36249461
PMCPMC9553916
OpenAlexW4304190238

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.