An AI method to predict pregnancy loss by extracting biological indicators from embryo ultrasound recordings in early pregnancy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
B-ultrasound results are widely used in early pregnancy loss (EPL) prediction, but there are inevitable intra-observer and inter-observer errors in B-ultrasound results especially in early pregnancy, which lead to inconsistent assessment of embryonic status, and thus affect the judgment of EPL. To address this, we need a rapid and accurate model to predict pregnancy loss in the first trimester. This study aimed to construct an artificial intelligence model to automatically extract biometric parameters from ultrasound videos of early embryos and predict pregnancy loss. This can effectively eliminate the measurement error of B-ultrasound results, accurately predict EPL, and provide decision support for doctors with relatively little clinical experience. A total of 630 ultrasound videos from women with early singleton pregnancies of gestational age between 6 and 10 weeks were used for training. A two-stage artificial intelligence model was established. First, some biometric parameters such as gestational sac areas (GSA), yolk sac diameter (YSD), crown rump length (CRL) and fetal heart rate (FHR), were extract from ultrasound videos by a deep neural network named A3F-net, which is a modified neural network based on U-Net designed by ourselves. Then an ensemble learning model predicted pregnancy loss risk based on these features. Dice, IOU and Precision were used to evaluate the measurement results, and sensitivity, AUC etc. were used to evaluate the predict results. The fetal heart rate was compared with those measured by doctors, and the accuracy of results was compared with other AI models. In the biometric features measurement stage, the precision of GSA, YSD and CRL of A3F-net were 98.64%, 96.94% and 92.83%, it was the highest compared to other 2 models. Bland-Altman analysis did not show systematic deviations between doctors and AI. The mean and standard deviation of the mean relative error between doctors and the AI model was 0.060 ± 0.057. In the EPL prediction stage, the ensemble learning models demonstrated excellent performance, with CatBoost being the best-performing model, achieving a precision of 98.0% and an AUC of 0.969 (95% CI: 0.962-0.975). In this study, a hybrid AI model to predict EPL was established. First, a deep neural network automatically measured the biometric parameters from ultrasound video to ensure the consistency and accuracy of the measurements, then a machine learning model predicted EPL risk to support doctors making decisions. The use of our established AI model in EPL prediction has the potential to assist physicians in making more accurate and timely clinical decision in clinical application.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».