Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
Tipo de estudio
País/Región como asunto
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
JAMA ; 332(8): 649-657, 2024 08 27.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39088200

RESUMEN

Importance: Accurate assessment of gestational age (GA) is essential to good pregnancy care but often requires ultrasonography, which may not be available in low-resource settings. This study developed a deep learning artificial intelligence (AI) model to estimate GA from blind ultrasonography sweeps and incorporated it into the software of a low-cost, battery-powered device. Objective: To evaluate GA estimation accuracy of an AI-enabled ultrasonography tool when used by novice users with no prior training in sonography. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective diagnostic accuracy study enrolled 400 individuals with viable, single, nonanomalous, first-trimester pregnancies in Lusaka, Zambia, and Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Credentialed sonographers established the "ground truth" GA via transvaginal crown-rump length measurement. At random follow-up visits throughout gestation, including a primary evaluation window from 14 0/7 weeks' to 27 6/7 weeks' gestation, novice users obtained blind sweeps of the maternal abdomen using the AI-enabled device (index test) and credentialed sonographers performed fetal biometry with a high-specification machine (study standard). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the mean absolute error (MAE) of the index test and study standard, which was calculated by comparing each method's estimate to the previously established GA and considered equivalent if the difference fell within a prespecified margin of ±2 days. Results: In the primary evaluation window, the AI-enabled device met criteria for equivalence to the study standard, with an MAE (SE) of 3.2 (0.1) days vs 3.0 (0.1) days (difference, 0.2 days [95% CI, -0.1 to 0.5]). Additionally, the percentage of assessments within 7 days of the ground truth GA was comparable (90.7% for the index test vs 92.5% for the study standard). Performance was consistent in prespecified subgroups, including the Zambia and North Carolina cohorts and those with high body mass index. Conclusions and Relevance: Between 14 and 27 weeks' gestation, novice users with no prior training in ultrasonography estimated GA as accurately with the low-cost, point-of-care AI tool as credentialed sonographers performing standard biometry on high-specification machines. These findings have immediate implications for obstetrical care in low-resource settings, advancing the World Health Organization goal of ultrasonography estimation of GA for all pregnant people. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05433519.


Asunto(s)
Inteligencia Artificial , Edad Gestacional , Ultrasonografía Prenatal , Adulto , Femenino , Humanos , Embarazo , Biometría/métodos , Largo Cráneo-Cadera , Sistemas de Atención de Punto/economía , Primer Trimestre del Embarazo , Estudios Prospectivos , Programas Informáticos , Ultrasonografía Prenatal/economía , Ultrasonografía Prenatal/instrumentación , Ultrasonografía Prenatal/métodos , Zambia
2.
NEJM Evid ; 1(5)2022 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36875289

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound is indispensable to gestational age estimation and thus to quality obstetrical care, yet high equipment cost and the need for trained sonographers limit its use in low-resource settings. METHODS: From September 2018 through June 2021, we recruited 4695 pregnant volunteers in North Carolina and Zambia and obtained blind ultrasound sweeps (cineloop videos) of the gravid abdomen alongside standard fetal biometry. We trained a neural network to estimate gestational age from the sweeps and, in three test data sets, assessed the performance of the artificial intelligence (AI) model and biometry against previously established gestational age. RESULTS: In our main test set, the mean absolute error (MAE) (±SE) was 3.9±0.12 days for the model versus 4.7±0.15 days for biometry (difference, -0.8 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.1 to -0.5; P<0.001). The results were similar in North Carolina (difference, -0.6 days; 95% CI, -0.9 to -0.2) and Zambia (-1.0 days; 95% CI, -1.5 to -0.5). Findings were supported in the test set of women who conceived by in vitro fertilization (MAE of 2.8±0.28 vs. 3.6±0.53 days for the model vs. biometry; difference, -0.8 days; 95% CI, -1.7 to 0.2) and in the set of women from whom sweeps were collected by untrained users with low-cost, battery-powered devices (MAE of 4.9±0.29 vs. 5.4±0.28 days for the model vs. biometry; difference, -0.6; 95% CI, -1.3 to 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: When provided blindly obtained ultrasound sweeps of the gravid abdomen, our AI model estimated gestational age with accuracy similar to that of trained sonographers conducting standard fetal biometry. Model performance appears to extend to blind sweeps collected by untrained providers in Zambia using low-cost devices. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.).

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA