ArticleUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2024
Deep-learning model for prenatal congenital heart disease screening generalizes to community setting and outperforms clinical detection.
Article in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of machine learning for diagnosis and prognostic prediction of congenital heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pediatrics · 2026Pooled it
- PRIME 2.0: Proposed Requirements for Cardiovascular Imaging-Related Multimodal-AI Evaluation: An Updated Checklist.JACC. Cardiovascular imaging · 2026Guideline
- Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Echocardiographic Image-Analysis for the Diagnosis of Fetal Congenital Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence as an Add-On Instrument in Fetal Ultrasound; Sonographers' and Obstetricians' Expectations.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Article
- The Dual Role of Neonatal Pulse Oximetry Screening and Fetal Echocardiography in Congenital Heart Disease Detection Around the World.International journal of neonatal screening · 2026Review
- Generative deep learning for foundational video translation in ultrasound.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Current status and prospects of prenatal ultrasound diagnosis of congenital heart disease in fetuses: a narrative review.Translational pediatrics · 2026Review
- TLEUDS: a cascade Dual-Transfer learning system with quality- and knowledge-enhanced for precise fetal CHD screening.BioData mining · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Based Automated Assessment of the Four-Chamber View in Fetal Cardiac Ultrasound Videos.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- First-time detection of treatable congenital heart disease - a study of school-aged children in the community of three regions in China.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Deep learning-based detection of murine congenital heart defects from µCT scans.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Article
- Artificial intelligence-enabled prenatal ultrasound for the detection of fetal cardiac abnormalities: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Article
- The Artificial Intelligence-Enhanced Echocardiographic Detection of Congenital Heart Defects in the Fetus: A Mini-Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning: An Updated Systematic Review of Their Role in Obstetrics and Midwifery.Cureus · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence-driven framework for improving prenatal screening for congenital heart disease in rural Nebraska.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Fetal and Pediatric Echocardiography.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- ChatGPT Helped Me Write This Talk Title, but Can It Read an Echocardiogram?Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography : official publication of the American Society of Echocardiography · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesDespite nearly universal prenatal ultrasound screening programs, congenital heart defects (CHD) are still missed, which may result in severe morbidity or even death. Deep machine learning (DL) can automate image recognition from ultrasound. The main aim of this study was to assess the performance of a previously developed DL model, trained on images from a tertiary center, using fetal ultrasound images obtained during the second-trimester standard anomaly scan in a low-risk population. A secondary aim was to compare initial screening diagnosis, which made use of live imaging at the point-of-care, with diagnosis by clinicians evaluating only stored images.
methodsAll pregnancies with isolated severe CHD in the Northwestern region of The Netherlands between 2015 and 2016 with available stored images were evaluated, as well as a sample of normal fetuses' examinations from the same region and time period. We compared the accuracy of the initial clinical diagnosis (made in real time with access to live imaging) with that of the model (which had only stored imaging available) and with the performance of three blinded human experts who had access only to the stored images (like the model). We analyzed performance according to ultrasound study characteristics, such as duration and quality (scored independently by investigators), number of stored images and availability of screening views.
resultsA total of 42 normal fetuses and 66 cases of isolated CHD at birth were analyzed. Of the abnormal cases, 31 were missed and 35 were detected at the time of the clinical anatomy scan (sensitivity, 53%). Model sensitivity and specificity were 91% and 78%, respectively. Blinded human experts (n = 3) achieved mean ± SD sensitivity and specificity of 55 ± 10% (range, 47-67%) and 71 ± 13% (range, 57-83%), respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in model correctness according to expert-graded image quality (P = 0.03). The abnormal cases included 19 lesions that the model had not encountered during its training; the model's performance in these cases (16/19 correct) was not statistically significantly different from that for previously encountered lesions (P = 0.41).
conclusionsA previously trained DL algorithm had higher sensitivity than initial clinical assessment in detecting CHD in a cohort in which over 50% of CHD cases were initially missed clinically. Notably, the DL algorithm performed well on community-acquired images in a low-risk population, including lesions to which it had not been exposed previously. Furthermore, when both the model and blinded human experts had access to only stored images and not the full range of images available to a clinician during a live scan, the model outperformed the human experts. Together, these findings support the proposition that use of DL models can improve prenatal detection of CHD. © 2023 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.