Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37774040›Full record

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.

C Athalye, A van Nisselrooij, S Rizvi, M C Haak, A J Moon-Grady, R Arnaout

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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 · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

C AthalyeDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
A van NisselrooijDepartment of Obstetrics, Division of Fetal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
S RizviDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
M C HaakDepartment of Obstetrics, Division of Fetal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0443-1997
A J Moon-GradyDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Cardiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
R ArnaoutDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7134-0040
University of California, San Francisco · USLeiden University Medical Center · NLIntel (United States) · US

Funding

Toward efficient performance for deep learning on medical imagingR01HL150394 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Rima Arnaout · 2020 to 2026
$6.2M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL150394NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

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

Deep LearningHeart Defects, CongenitalFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyPrenatal DiagnosisSensitivity and SpecificityUltrasonography, Prenatalartificial intelligencecongenital heart diseasefetal screeningmachine learningultrasound

Identifiers

PMID37774040
PMCPMC10841849
OpenAlexW4387168352

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.