ArticleScientific reports2025
Clinical validation of explainable AI for fetal growth scans through multi-level, cross-institutional prospective end-user evaluation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Explainable artificial intelligence in medical ultrasound: a WoSCC-based bibliometric analysis, evidence map, and Scopus concordance assessment.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Which explainable AI methods in medical imaging are clinically impactful? A systematic literature review addressing the clinician's perspective.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Pooled it
- Review
- Cancer of unknown primary: the evolution of tissue of origin identification in the artificial intelligence era.Biomarker research · 2026Review
- A comprehensive review of explainable artificial intelligence in healthcare methods, evaluation, and clinical integration.iScience · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence-driven personalized dietary recommendations for gastric cancer high-risk populations: a narrative review.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
- Investigating discrepancies in accuracy, agreement and interpretability for single-frame embryo classification tasks conducted by embryologists and deep learning models.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2026Article
- Article
- A multi-modal AI framework integrating Siamese networks and few-shot learning for early fetal health risk assessment.MethodsX · 2025Article
- Application of artificial intelligence in diagnosis and management of fetal growth disorders: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence in maternal and child health: Current applications, translational gaps, and future research priorities.Women's health (London, England)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We aimed to develop and evaluate Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) for fetal ultrasound using actionable concepts as feedback to end-users, using a prospective cross-center, multi-level approach. We developed, implemented, and tested a deep-learning model for fetal growth scans using both retrospective and prospective data. We used a modified Progressive Concept Bottleneck Model with pre-established clinical concepts as explanations (feedback on image optimization and presence of anatomical landmarks) as well as segmentations (outlining anatomical landmarks). The model was evaluated prospectively by assessing the following: the model's ability to assess standard plane quality, the correctness of explanations, the clinical usefulness of explanations, and the model's ability to discriminate between different levels of expertise among clinicians. We used 9352 annotated images for model development and 100 videos for prospective evaluation. Overall classification accuracy was 96.3%. The model's performance in assessing standard plane quality was on par with that of clinicians. Agreement between model segmentations and explanations provided by expert clinicians was found in 83.3% and 74.2% of cases, respectively. A panel of clinicians evaluated segmentations as useful in 72.4% of cases and explanations as useful in 75.0% of cases. Finally, the model reliably discriminated between the performances of clinicians with different levels of experience (p- values < 0.01 for all measures) Our study has successfully developed an Explainable AI model for real-time feedback to clinicians performing fetal growth scans. This work contributes to the existing literature by addressing the gap in the clinical validation of Explainable AI models within fetal medicine, emphasizing the importance of multi-level, cross-institutional, and prospective evaluation with clinician end-users. The prospective clinical validation uncovered challenges and opportunities that could not have been anticipated if we had only focused on retrospective development and validation, such as leveraging AI to gauge operator competence in fetal ultrasound.
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.