Back

Applying AI models to digital placental photographs to automate and improve morphology assessments

Gernand, A. D.; Walker, R.; Pan, Y.; Mehta, M.; Sincerbeaux, G.; Gallagher, K.; Bebell, L. M.; Ngonzi, J.; Catov, J. M.; Skvarca, L. B.; Wang, J. Z.; Goldstein, J. A.

2026-03-02 pathology
10.64898/2026.02.28.26347346 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundPlacental growth and function are imperative for healthy fetal growth; data on placentas can inform research and clinical care. Measuring placental size after delivery should be easy, but current methods are hard to standardize and error prone. We developed PlacentaVision using artificial intelligence (AI)-based models, to automatically, accurately, and precisely measure placentas from digital photographs. ObjectiveWe aimed to compare placental disc morphology between gross pathology examination (human measurements) and our automated PlacentaVision model (AI measurements). MethodsPlacentaVision is a multi-site study to assess placental morphology, features, and pathologies from digital photographs. We built a large dataset of digital placenta photographs and clinical data from singleton births at three large hospitals: Northwestern Memorial (Chicago; n=24,933), UPMC Magee-Womens (Pittsburgh; n=1198) and Mbarara Regional Referral (Uganda, n=1715). Data and images were from the medical record for Northwestern, part of a biobank study for Magee, and from our prospective studies for Mbarara. We compared long and short disc axis length (defined by Amsterdam criteria) between human and AI-based PlacentaVision measurements by calculating the difference and using Bland-Altman; we stratified by site, disc shape, infant sex, and term/preterm birth. ResultsMean (SD) disc length was 19.2 (3.1) and 18.6 (3.1) cm from PlacentaVision and human measurement, respectively, with a difference of 0.57 (2.19) cm. Disc width was 16.3 (2.3) cm and 16.1 (2.4) cm from PlacentaVision and human measurement, respectively, with a difference of 0.25 (1.85) cm. Bland-Altman limits of agreement were -3.7 to 4.9 cm for length and -3.4 to 3.9 cm for width. Irregularly-shaped placentas had a greater difference between PlacentaVision and human measurements compared to those with round/oval shapes (length differences of 1.53 and 0.45 cm respectively). Further, there were length differences by site (Northwestern 0.6, Magee 0.0, and Mbarara 0.4) and gestational age at birth (preterm 0.71, term 0.53 cm), but similar results for male and female placentas. Results for width were similar to length. ConclusionsAI-based measurements were less than a cm from human measurements overall. Our findings of larger differences for irregular shapes and preterm may indicate it is difficult for humans to measure irregular or small placentas according to protocol. PlacentaVision can automate and standardize the process.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 4%
24.3%
2
Placenta
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.9%
3
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
9.1%
4
Journal of Clinical Pathology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.5%
5
Journal of Pathology Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.9%
50% of probability mass above
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 32%
3.9%
7
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.9%
8
Biology of Reproduction
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.9%
9
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.6%
10
Animals
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
11
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
12
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
13
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.3%
14
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
15
Journal of Visualized Experiments
30 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
16
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
35 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.0%
17
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
18
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
19
Genetics in Medicine
69 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
20
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
21
Modern Pathology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
22
Canadian Medical Association Journal
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
23
The Lancet Regional Health - Western Pacific
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
24
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 42%
0.8%
25
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 55%
0.8%
26
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.8%
27
Journal of Biomechanics
57 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
28
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%