Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39820804›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Clinical validation of explainable AI for fetal growth scans through multi-level, cross-institutional prospective end-user evaluation.

Zahra Bashir, Manxi Lin, Aasa Feragen, Kamil Mikolaj, Caroline Taksøe-Vester, Anders Nymark Christensen, Morten B S Svendsen, Mette Hvilshøj Fabricius, Lisbeth Andreasen, Mads Nielsen and 1 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
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

11 authors.

Zahra BashirDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. zab@regionsjaelland.dk.
Manxi LinTechnical University of Denmark (DTU), Lyngby, Denmark.
Aasa FeragenTechnical University of Denmark (DTU), Lyngby, Denmark.
Kamil MikolajTechnical University of Denmark (DTU), Lyngby, Denmark.
Caroline Taksøe-VesterDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anders Nymark ChristensenTechnical University of Denmark (DTU), Lyngby, Denmark.
Morten B S SvendsenCopenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation (CAMES), Rigshospitalet, Denmark.
Mette Hvilshøj FabriciusDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Slagelse Hospital, Fælledvej 11, 4200, Slagelse, Denmark.
Lisbeth AndreasenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hvidovre Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark.
Mads NielsenDepartment of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Martin Grønnebæk TolsgaardDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

The Local Research Fund for Næstved, Slagelse, and Ringsted Hospitals, A1152
6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceFetal DevelopmentUltrasonography, PrenatalDeep LearningFemaleFetusHumansPregnancyProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesArtificial intelligence, Fetal growth scans, Explainable AI, Human-AI collaboration

Identifiers

PMID39820804
PMCPMC11739376

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.