ArticlePregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.)2026
Non-inferiority analysis of a fetal heart rate artificial intelligence algorithm to registered nurse assessment.
Article in Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cardiotocography (CTG) is widely used for monitoring fetal heart rate (FHR) and uterine activity (UA) during pregnancy and labor. Clinician interpretation of CTG tracings may be subjective, leading to significant inter- and intra-observer variability and inconsistent clinical decision-making. An artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm using deep learning and rule-based techniques was developed to label FHR and UA data during labor. Further development of such algorithms may add future objective monitor outputs to support clinician interpretation. This study assessed the non-inferiority of the algorithm's performance compared to registered nurse (RN) reader assessment. Methods: This retrospective non-inferiority assessment utilized CTG data across five US hospital facilities (2013-2024). CTG labeling assessment by the AI algorithm was compared with that of RN readers for primary endpoints (baseline value, accelerations, decelerations, contraction frequency, and contraction duration) and secondary endpoints (variability and deceleration types), using a panel of qualified expert RNs who accepted or rejected the assessment. Exploratory endpoints included frequency of true and false positives/negatives and sensitivity/specificity of accelerations and decelerations. A non-inferiority threshold of 15% was required between the RN reader and algorithm. Results: Of 2639 de-identified fetal tracings, 800 were randomly selected for this study. The most frequently reported maternal characteristics were full-term gestational age ( Conclusion: This study demonstrated the non-inferiority of a novel AI algorithm compared to RN readers in analyzing and assessing fetal tracings. These findings highlight AI's potential to serve as a decision-making support tool in obstetric care. By providing consistent analyses, the algorithm may help reduce observer variability and enhance clinicians' confidence in identifying fetal parameters.
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.