ReviewIndian journal of pediatrics2026
Artificial Intelligence in Prediction and Diagnosis of Fetal Growth Restriction: A Systematic Review.
Review in Indian journal of pediatrics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review evaluates evidence on artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) models for prediction and diagnosis of fetal growth restriction (FGR). The authors searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, through June 2026 following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Studies on AI/ML-based prediction or diagnosis techniques for FGR, Intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) or Small for gestational age (SGA) fetuses. The prediction model risk of bias assessment Tool (PROBAST) was used to perform data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Twenty-seven studies were eligible for inclusion. AI applications were biophysical (n = 10), Doppler-based (n = 10), clinical (n = 7), ultrasound (n = 7), MRI (n = 7), radiomics imaging (n = 10), cardiotocography (n = 10), genomics (n = 10), and metabolomics-based biomarker models (n = 10). The model performance was good, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) of 0.71-0.91 and classification accuracies of 78.9-93.3%. Imaging and multimodal data-based models showed the highest predictive performance. The PROBAST assessment showed that the risk of bias was low for the participant, predictor and outcome domains, but the analytical domain raised methodological concerns; nine studies were low risk, 14 moderate and 4 high. The AI and ML models for FGR detection performed promisingly. Multimodal approaches that combine clinical, imaging and molecular data consistently outperform single modality models and constitute a major advance in precision obstetrics. However, there remains substantial heterogeneity, limited external validation and methodological issues. Future prospective multicenter studies, standardized reporting, and real-world implementation research are needed for routine clinical adoption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42862457What 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.