ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Applying AI models to digital placental photographs to automate and improve morphology assessments.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Placental growth and function are imperative for healthy fetal growth; data on placentas can inform research and clinical care. Measuring placental size after delivery should be easy, but current methods are hard to standardize and error prone. We developed PlacentaVision using artificial intelligence (AI)-based models, to automatically, accurately, and precisely measure placentas from digital photographs. Objective: We aimed to compare placental disc morphology between gross pathology examination (human measurements) and our automated PlacentaVision model (AI measurements). Methods: PlacentaVision is a multi-site study to assess placental morphology, features, and pathologies from digital photographs. We built a large dataset of digital placenta photographs and clinical data from singleton births at three large hospitals: Northwestern Memorial (Chicago; n=24,933), UPMC Magee-Womens (Pittsburgh; n=1198) and Mbarara Regional Referral (Uganda, n=1715). Data and images were from the medical record for Northwestern, part of a biobank study for Magee, and from our prospective studies for Mbarara. We compared long and short disc axis length (defined by Amsterdam criteria) between human and AI-based PlacentaVision measurements by calculating the difference and using Bland-Altman; we stratified by site, disc shape, infant sex, and term/preterm birth. Results: Mean (SD) disc length was 19.2 (3.1) and 18.6 (3.1) cm from PlacentaVision and human measurement, respectively, with a difference of 0.57 (2.19) cm. Disc width was 16.3 (2.3) cm and 16.1 (2.4) cm from PlacentaVision and human measurement, respectively, with a difference of 0.25 (1.85) cm. Bland-Altman limits of agreement were -3.7 to 4.9 cm for length and -3.4 to 3.9 cm for width. Irregularly-shaped placentas had a greater difference between PlacentaVision and human measurements compared to those with round/oval shapes (length differences of 1.53 and 0.45 cm respectively). Further, there were length differences by site (Northwestern 0.6, Magee 0.0, and Mbarara 0.4) and gestational age at birth (preterm 0.71, term 0.53 cm), but similar results for male and female placentas. Results for width were similar to length. Conclusions: AI-based measurements were less than a cm from human measurements overall. Our findings of larger differences for irregular shapes and preterm may indicate it is difficult for humans to measure irregular or small placentas according to protocol. PlacentaVision can automate and standardize the process.
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.