ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2026
Impact of a new image enhancement technology on the biometric measurements in pregnancy.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Systematic Review of the Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems for Assessing Multiple Parameters During the Ultrasound Evaluation of Fetal Growth.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the impact of a new image enhancement technique on biparietal diameter (BPD), head and abdominal circumference (HC and AC), and femur length (FL) measurements as well as the estimated fetal weight (EFW).
methodsIn this retrospective study, the second and third trimester biometry (BPD, HC, AC, and FL) images that were taken with two GE Voluson E22 ultrasound machines between May and July 2025 were collected. Each measurement was retrospectively obtained using the following settings in sequence: the radiant mode turned off and with the radiant mode turned on minimum, medium, and maximum levels. The measurements were made using automated caliper placement technology. The EFW was calculated using the Hadlock formula. Only the cases where each of the measurements were adequately identified by the automated measurement system were used in the study. Comparisons among the measurements taken without the radiant mode and with the three levels of the radiant mode were then made.
resultsThe study population consisted of 298 women. The median gestational age was 23 weeks. The automated measurement system was able to place the calipers correctly for all required measurements in 253 (84.9%) cases. These cases were then used for further analysis. A comparison of the measurements done without radiant mode and those with the aid of radiant technology showed that BPDs were slightly larger and the FLs were shorter. The HCs and ACs remained unchanged with all three radiant settings. The EFWs also remained unchanged with the minimum radiant setting but were lower with both the medium and maximum radiant setting. The changes were most pronounced with the maximum setting. The average bias was between - 0.11% and 1.51%. The widest range of biases was found for the estimated fetal weight when a maximum radiant mode was used. In this case, 95% of the biases were within - 6.1 and 9.0%.
conclusionThe radiant mode can affect the automated fetal biometry, particularly using the maximum mode. Although the average effect is modest, biases may be clinically relevant, especially if other factors increase the extent of the bias.
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.