Artificial intelligence as a teaching tool for gynaecological ultrasound: A systematic search and scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the current application of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the teaching of ultrasound skills as they pertain to gynaecological ultrasound. Methods: A scoping review was performed. Eight databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore and ACM digital library) were searched in December 2022 using predefined keywords. All types of publications were eligible for inclusion so long as they reported the use of an AI tool, included reference to or discussion of teaching or the improvement of ultrasound skills and pertained to gynaecological ultrasound. Conference abstracts and non-English language papers which could not be adequately translated into English were excluded. Results: The initial database search returned 481 articles. After screening against our inclusion and exclusion criteria, two were deemed to meet the inclusion criteria. Neither of the articles included reported original research (one systematic review and one review article). Neither of the included articles explicitly provided details of specific tools developed for the teaching of ultrasound skills for gynaecological imaging but highlighted similar applications within the field of obstetrics which could potentially be expanded. Conclusion: Artificial intelligence can potentially assist in the training of sonographers and other ultrasound operators, including in the field of gynaecological ultrasound. This scoping review revealed however that to date, no original research has been published reporting the use or development of such a tool specifically for gynaecological ultrasound.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".