ReviewActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2026
The application of artificial intelligence in blind ultrasound sweep diagnostics for prenatal medicine: A systematic literature review.
Review in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionObstetric ultrasound is fundamental in prenatal care for gestational age (GA) estimation, fetal monitoring, and complication screening. However, access to quality ultrasound is limited in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where nearly half of pregnant women receive no scans during pregnancy. Even in high-income countries, disparities in care persist. Recently, artificial intelligence (AI) applied to "blind" ultrasound sweeps-standardized transabdominal sweeps performed by minimally trained personnel-has emerged as a promising tool to improve access to diagnostic-quality prenatal ultrasound. MATERIAL AND
methodsA systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted. PubMed was searched through April 2025 using terms such as [blind sweep], [prenatal ultrasound], and [deep learning]. Studies were included if they assessed AI models applied to blind-sweep ultrasound for prenatal diagnostics. Fourteen studies (12 original, 2 reviews/meta-analyses) met eligibility. Data were extracted on study design, population, acquisition protocol, AI models, and diagnostic performance. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2.
resultsAI models demonstrated comparable or superior performance to expert sonographers in mid-trimester GA estimation, with mean absolute errors of 3-5 days. In a large multicenter study, AI outperformed traditional biometry (3.9 vs. 4.7 days error). Accuracy remained high even with minimally trained operators. AI also performed well in detecting breech presentation (AUC ~0.98), assessing amniotic fluid (Dice ~0.88; AFI accuracy ~91%), and segmenting fetal anatomy for biometry. Limitations included reduced accuracy in late pregnancy and limited validation in early gestation or anomaly detection.
conclusionsAI-based blind sweep ultrasound holds transformative potential for global prenatal care, enabling scalable, low-cost diagnostics in LMICs and underserved settings. While promising, clinical adoption requires broader validation, improved interpretability, and integration into healthcare systems. With further development, this technology could significantly contribute to equitable prenatal diagnostics and reduced maternal-fetal morbidity worldwide.
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.