Observational studyUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2026
Real-time gestational-age estimation at 11-13 weeks using artificial intelligence on non-targeted ultrasound sweeps.
Observational study in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 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
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the accuracy of gestational-age estimation using an artificial intelligence (AI) system applied to non-targeted ultrasound sweeps at 11 + 0 to 13 + 6 weeks' gestation.
methodsThis was an observational study of singleton pregnancies undergoing routine first-trimester ultrasound in July 2025 to August 2025. Gestational age was estimated using crown-rump length (CRL), measured independently by two experienced sonographers blinded to the other's results, and by an AI system applied twice per examination. Comparisons were made using mean absolute error (MAE) and Bland-Altman analysis. A hierarchical measurement error model was used to account for uncertainty in CRL-based estimates and to estimate accuracy relative to a latent true gestational age, with Bayesian inference.
resultsOverall, 285 women with a singleton pregnancy were included. The AI model estimated gestational age in all cases, with a median acquisition time of 23 s for the first AI measurement. The MAE between AI- and CRL-based gestational age was 2.1 (95% CI, 1.9-2.3) days for single measurements and 2.0 days when averaging both AI estimates. Limits of agreement were wider for AI-based estimates than for CRL-based estimates, indicating lower precision. When accounting for measurement error in CRL, the estimated MAE for AI was lower (1.8 days for single and 1.6 days for duplicate measurements). CRL-based estimates showed lower variability than AI-based estimates. Within-operator variation was the main source of error in AI measurements.
conclusionsAI-based gestational-age estimation performs well in the first trimester but is less precise than gestational-age estimation using CRL measured by experienced sonographers. Measurement error models give a clearer picture of performance by accounting for variability in CRL and show that the accuracy of AI-based estimates is better than suggested by simple comparisons. © 2026 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
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.