ArticleJAMA network open2026
Generalization of AI-Based Gestational Age Assessment Using Blind Sweep Ultrasonography.
Article in JAMA network open, 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems have been developed to estimate gestational age (GA) based on blind sweep ultrasonography scans performed by novice operators. However, their generalizability to new clinical contexts outside original training settings requires evaluation. Objective: To investigate the ability of a previously trained AI system to interpret blind sweep ultrasonography scans for GA estimation to generalize to new clinical environments. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective diagnostic study compares AI model performance against the clinical standard for GA determination. The model was primarily accessed following lightweight adaptation using data from 1 setting. From a broader cohort of 2043 participants (1008 in Chicago and 1035 in Nairobi), datasets included an adaptation set of 120 Chicago participants (split evenly for training and validation) and a primary evaluation set of 385 participants (192 in Chicago and 193 in Nairobi) with GAs of 16 to 36 weeks. The study took place in 2 urban medical institutions, 1 in Chicago, Illinois (March 7, 2022, to May 28, 2024) and 1 in Nairobi, Kenya (January 8 to September 2, 2024). Data were analyzed April 21 to June 4, 2025. Intervention: A mobile application containing the AI system for GA estimation, with data collected via a protocolized blind sweep procedure by novice operators. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the mean absolute error (MAE) of the fine-tuned AI's GA estimation compared with the clinical standard (expert sonographer estimate), using a 1-day noninferiority margin. Results: The primary evaluation set included 385 participants (mean [SD] maternal age, 31.3 [5.6] years). The adapted model achieved an MAE of 4.1 days (95% CI, 3.5-4.7) in Chicago and 4.3 days (95% CI, 3.8-4.8 days) in Nairobi. Overall, the AI model demonstrated noninferiority to clinical standard estimates (MAE, 4.2 days [95% CI, 3.8-4.6 days] vs 4.5 days [95% CI, 4.1-4.9 days]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the AI model for GA estimation, using blind sweep data collected by novice operators, demonstrated generalization to new clinical settings and a different ultrasonography probe. This study highlighted the potential of AI-based ultrasonography assessment to expand access to care through scalable cross-setting deployment, particularly in low-resource settings.
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.