Back

Development and external validation of deep learning models for spontaneous preterm birth prediction from mid-trimester cervical ultrasound

Chanian, R.; Mishra, D.; Jain, R.; Sharma, N.; Khurana, A.; Tripathi, R.; Tripathi, A.; group, G.-I. s.; Wadhwa, N.; Noble, J. A.; Thiruvengadam, R.; Desiraju, B. K.; Bhatnagar, S.

2026-07-19 obstetrics and gynecology
10.64898/2026.07.17.26358221 medRxiv
Show abstract

Preterm birth is the leading cause of neonatal death. Despite sustained efforts to identify high-risk women in the mid-trimester, accurate prediction remains difficult. Quantitative cervical ultrasound texture has been proposed as a predictor of spontaneous preterm birth. However, earlier models were developed in small single-centre samples and were not externally validated. We developed image-texture (Local Binary Patterns with a Random Forest), deep-learning (Vision Transformer), clinical-variable, and multimodal models to predict spontaneous preterm birth on the prospective GARBH-Ini cohort. We then externally validated our best models on an independent cohort scanned on a different ultrasound machine. Our best overall model reached an internal-test area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve of 0.71 (95% CI 0.60, 0.82), but performed modestly at 0.52 (95% CI 0.38, 0.64) externally. The deep-learning and multimodal models did not perform better. Discrimination appeared higher in a clinically high-risk subgroup at the 34-week threshold. These estimates were imprecise because of few cases and need to be confirmed in future studies. Among the several likely reasons for the modest external performance is the heterogeneity of preterm birth. Predicting distinct preterm-birth subtypes separately, and integrating additional biomarkers and data domains, might improve model performance. Keywords: preterm birth; cervical ultrasound; prediction model; external validation; deep learning

Matching journals

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

1
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.7%
2
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 4%
10.7%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 21%
8.0%
4
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
5
Bioengineering
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
50% of probability mass above
6
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 1%
5.2%
7
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.9%
8
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 6%
4.1%
9
International Journal of Medical Informatics
26 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.3%
10
Medical Image Analysis
35 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.4%
11
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 41%
2.1%
12
Healthcare
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
13
Journal of Clinical Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
14
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
15
Nature Medicine
125 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
16
Placenta
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
17
JAMIA Open
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
18
Journal of Clinical Pathology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
19
Human Reproduction
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
20
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
21
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
22
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
23
Pediatric Pulmonology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
24
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
25
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 39%
0.6%