ArticleCureus2025
Cardiotocography-Based Experimental Comparison of Artificial Intelligence and Human Judgment in Assessing Fetal Asphyxia During Delivery.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiotocography (CTG) has long been the standard method for monitoring fetal status during delivery. Despite its widespread use, human error and variability in CTG interpretation contribute to adverse neonatal outcomes, with over 70% of stillbirths, neonatal deaths, and brain injuries potentially avoidable through accurate analysis. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) offer opportunities to address these challenges by complementing human judgment. This study experimentally compared the diagnostic accuracy of AI and human specialists in predicting fetal asphyxia using CTG data. Machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) algorithms were developed and trained on 3,519 CTG datasets. Human specialists independently assessed 50 CTG figures each through web-based questionnaires. A total of 984 CTG figures from singleton pregnancies were evaluated, and outcomes were compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Human diagnosis achieved the highest area under the curve (AUC) of 0.693 (p = 0.0003), outperforming AI-based methods (ML: AUC = 0.514, p = 0.788; DL: AUC = 0.524, p = 0.662). Although DL-assisted judgment improved sensitivity and identified cases missed by humans, it did not surpass the accuracy of human judgment alone. Combining human and AI predictions yielded a lower AUC (0.693) than human diagnosis alone, but improved specificity (91.92% for humans, 98.03% for humans and DL), highlighting AI's potential to complement human judgment by reducing false-positive rates. Our findings underscore the need for further refinement of AI algorithms and the accumulation of CTG data to enhance diagnostic accuracy. Integrating AI into clinical workflows could reduce human error, optimize resource allocation, and improve neonatal outcomes, particularly in resource-limited settings. These advancements promise a future where AI assists obstetricians in making more objective and accurate decisions during delivery.
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.