ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2026
Clinical Grading of Artificial Intelligence-Based 3D Fetal Brain Segmentations: A Cross-Vendor Evaluation of Deep Learning in Fetal Neuroimaging.
Article in Prenatal diagnosis, 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
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the performance of automated (sub)cortical fetal brain segmentation methods on a novel 3D ultrasound dataset acquired from a different vendor, and to introduce a clinician-focused visual evaluation framework complementary to the widely used Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC).
methodThis cohort study included 270 volumes (141 fetuses, 19-26 + 6 weeks gestation). Deep learning models were applied to segment the cavum septum pellucidum et vergae (CSPV), lateral posterior ventricle horn (LPVH), choroid plexus (ChP), cerebellum (CBM) and cortical plate (CoP) on a new dataset acquired by a different ultrasound vendor. Segmentations were visually graded (1-4 = high to poor quality) based on predefined criteria. Grades were analyzed as "adequate" (1 + 2) or "inadequate" (3 + 4).
resultsCSPV, ChP and CBM showed the best segmentation grades (> 83.1% grade 1, > 90.5% adequate) and were robust across gestation. LPVH showed the lowest performance (73.9% adequate). Overall segmentation quality across all structures was high (87.2% adequate). Intra- and interobserver agreement was 90.1% and 82.1%-92.7%, respectively.
conclusionThese deep-learning methods can reliably segment (sub)cortical structures when applied to a novel dataset acquired with a different ultrasound vendor, demonstrating robustness. Incorporating visual assessment alongside quantitative metrics provides insight into anatomical accuracy and clinical usability.
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.