ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Artificial intelligence-assisted quality assessment of mid-trimester ultrasound examinations using large vision-language models.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo develop and evaluate a deep learning and vision-language model (VLM) system for automated quality assessment of mid-trimester fetal ultrasound examinations.
methodsThis multicenter retrospective study included 22,544 ultrasound planes from 273 internal and 29 external examinations, combined with public data. A SonoNet-based convolutional neural network (CNN) was developed to identify standard planes and key anatomical structures, while a fine-tuned VLM synthesized CNN-derived image descriptions to evaluate overall examination completeness. Six obstetric sonographers with different experience levels participated in a two-phase reader study to assess the effect of AI assistance on diagnostic performance.
resultsThe fine-tuned VLMs demonstrated consistent accuracy in overall examination assessment, achieving F1-scores up to 0.944 on the internal and 0.922 on the external test sets, consistently outperforming both the CNN baseline and zero-shot models. In individual plane analysis, the best-performing VLM reached an overall F1-score of 0.820 and performed robustly across all error categories. In the reader study, AI assistance improved overall diagnostic consistency and recall across all experience levels, while also showing shorter reading times during case review. The system also provided interpretable feedback by identifying missing or low-quality planes.
conclusionsA combined CNN-VLM system enables accurate and interpretable automated quality assessment of fetal ultrasound examinations and enhances reader performance in detecting incomplete or poor-quality scans.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.