切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华医学超声杂志(电子版) ›› 2026, Vol. 23 ›› Issue (03) : 228 -235. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2026.03.007

妇产科超声影像学

人工智能质控平台在提高中孕期系统性超声检查图像质量中的应用价值
陈诺, 罗细顺, 刘福, 章敏, 成晨, 赵胜()   
  1. 430070 武汉,湖北省妇幼保健院超声诊断科
  • 收稿日期:2025-08-19 出版日期:2026-03-01
  • 通信作者: 赵胜
  • 基金资助:
    湖北省卫健委重点项目(WJ2023Z007); 湖北省科技厅项目(2025AFD847,2025BCB026)

Impact of an artificial intelligence-based quality control platform on image quality in mid-trimester systemic ultrasound screening

Nuo Chen, Xishun Luo, Fu Liu, Min Zhang, Chen Cheng, Sheng Zhao()   

  1. Department of Ultrasound Diagnosis, Maternal and Child Health Hospital of Hubei Province, Wuhan 430070, China
  • Received:2025-08-19 Published:2026-03-01
  • Corresponding author: Sheng Zhao
引用本文:

陈诺, 罗细顺, 刘福, 章敏, 成晨, 赵胜. 人工智能质控平台在提高中孕期系统性超声检查图像质量中的应用价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2026, 23(03): 228-235.

Nuo Chen, Xishun Luo, Fu Liu, Min Zhang, Chen Cheng, Sheng Zhao. Impact of an artificial intelligence-based quality control platform on image quality in mid-trimester systemic ultrasound screening[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2026, 23(03): 228-235.

目的

探讨人工智能(artificial intelligence,AI)质控平台在提高中孕期胎儿系统性超声检查图像质量中的应用价值。

方法

使用“产前超声AI智慧云平台”对2022年1月至2024年12月在湖北省妇幼保健院超声诊断科行中孕期胎儿系统性超声检查的图像进行智能质控,共计11 559人次,766 233张超声图像。参与质控的医师共37人,其中高级职称3人、副高级职称7人、中级职称20人、初级职称7人。应用χ2检验对3年间的图像标准率及病例合格率进行比较,并对各年度各级医师的切面图像标准率进行对比,评估AI质控平台对于提高图像质量的价值。

结果

2022年至2024年间3年的质控切面图像总标准率分别为70.81%、73.65%、74.10%,差异有统计学意义(χ2=931.883,P=0.000),病例合格率分别为79.51%、84.38%、90.17%,差异有统计学意义(χ2=181.479,P=0.000),病例质控缺失率为18.51%、14.47%、8.84%。每年的图像总标准率、病例总合格率及各切面病例合格率逐步提高,并趋于稳定,病例缺失率逐年降低;其中,初级医师三年图像总标准率提升了4.39%,非标准率降低了2.17%,效果最为显著。

结论

AI质控平台可以有效改进各级医师中孕期系统性超声检查的图像质量,提升医师对标准切面的认识,增强医师进行规范化中孕期系统性超声检查的意识。

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based quality control (QC) platform in improving the image quality of mid-trimester systematic ultrasound screening.

Methods

The "Prenatal Ultrasound AI Cloud Platform" was used to perform intelligent QC of ultrasound images obtained from 11559 mid-trimester systematic ultrasound screening examinations (766 233 images) conducted between January 2022 and December 2024. A total of 37 sonographers (including 3 senior, 7 associate senior, 20 intermediate, and 7 junior practitioners) participated in the study. The χ2 test was applied to compare annual standard-plane acquisition rates and case qualification rates over the 3-year period, as well as differences in standard-plane acquisition rates among operators with different professional ranks. The effectiveness of the AI-based QC platform in improving image quality was subsequently assessed.

Results

From 2022 to 2024, the overall standard-plane compliance rates increased from 70.81% to 73.65% and 74.10%, with significant differences across the three years (χ2=931.883, P=0.000). The case qualification rates also increased from 79.51% to 84.38% and 90.17% (χ2=181.479, P=0.000). Meanwhile, the rates of missing QC-required images decreased from 18.51% to 14.47% and 8.84%, respectively. Overall, image standardization and case qualification rates improved steadily over time, whereas missing-image rates showed a continuous decline. Among all operator groups, junior sonographers demonstrated the greatest improvement, with a 4.39% increase in the overall image standardization rate and a 2.17% reduction in the non-standard image rate over the three-year period.

Conclusion

The AI-based QC platform effectively enhances ultrasound image quality across operators of all skill levels, improves their recognition of standard sections, and strengthens adherence to standardized mid-trimester systematic ultrasound screening.

图1 中孕期胎儿系统性超声质控标准切面。图a为丘脑水平横切面;图b为上腹部水平横切面;图c为小脑水平横切面;图d为四腔心切面;图e为双眼球水平横切面;图f为双肾横切面;图g为右室流出道切面;图h为鼻唇冠状切面;图i为侧脑室水平横切面;图j为左室流出道切面;图k为胫腓骨冠状切面(2);图l为脐带腹壁入口处横切面;图m为尺桡骨冠状切面(2);图n为膀胱水平横切面彩色多普勒;图o为股骨长轴切面(2);图p为肱骨长轴切面(2);图q为颈胸段脊柱矢状切面;图r为腰骶尾段脊柱矢状切面;图s为胎盘下缘与宫颈内口矢状切面
图2 AI质控平台的评分方式。图a为 超声原图像;图b为检测后图像;图c为 质控结果显示
图3 2022年~2024年质控切面标准率比较
图4 2022年~2024年质控病例合格率比较
表1 各级医师每年图像总标准率比较
表2 各质控切面的年度病例图像合格率
切面名称 优秀[例(%)] 合格[例(%)] 不合格[例(%)] 缺失率[例(%)]
2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024 2022 2023 2024
丘脑水平横切面 1199
(35.24)
1798
(43.37)
2000
(49.49)
296
(8.70)
313
(7.58)
284
(7.03)
218
(6.41)
229
(5.56)
211
(5.22)
1689
(49.65)
1790
(43.49)
1546
(38.26)
上腹部水平横切面 3116
(91.59)
3862
(93.83)
3810
(94.28)
30
(8.82)
28
(0.68)
35
(0.87)
151
(4.44)
101
(2.45)
78
(1.93)
105
(3.09)
125
(3.04)
118
(2.92)
小脑水平横切面 3027
(88.98)
3786
(91.98)
3765
(93.17)
148
(4.35)
142
(3.45)
122
(3.02)
213
(6.26)
169
(4.11)
122
(3.02)
14
(0.41)
19
(0.46)
32
(0.79)
四腔心切面 3363
(98.85)
4078
(99.08)
3953
(97.82)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
5
(0.15)
7
(0.17)
22
(0.54)
34
(1.00)
31
(0.75)
66
(1.63)
双眼球水平横切面 1054
(30.98)
1718
(41.74)
2061
(52.55)
1803
(53.00)
2038
(49.51)
1626
(41.46)
282
(8.29)
22
(0.53)
12
(0.31)
263
(7.73)
338
(8.21)
223
(5.69)
双肾横切面 2401
(70.58)
2938
(71.38)
2835
(70.16)
391
(11.58)
425
(10.33)
492
(12.18)
66
(1.94)
77
(1.87)
46
(1.14)
541
(15.90)
676
(16.42)
668
(16.53)
右室流出道切面 1333
(39.18)
1899
(46.14)
2699
(66.79)
211
(6.20)
199
(4.83)
144
(2.82)
45
(1.32)
61
(1.48)
30
(0.74)
1813
(53.29)
1957
(47.55)
1198
(29.65)
鼻唇冠状切面 3221
(92.21)
3884
(94.36)
3843
(95.10)
50
(1.47)
45
(1.09)
39
(0.97)
84
(2.47)
49
(1.19)
54
(1.34)
97
(2.85)
138
(3.35)
105
(2.60)
侧脑室水平横切面 2896
(85.13)
3647
(88.61)
3704
(91.66)
347
(10.20)
338
(8.21)
234
(5.79)
60
(1.76)
47
(1.14)
26
(0.64)
99
(2.91)
84
(2.04)
77
(1.91)
左室流出道切面 3059
(89.92)
3789
(92.06)
3618
(89.53)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
5
(0.15)
11
(0.27)
14
(0.35)
338
(9.94)
316
(7.68)
409
(10.12)
胫腓骨冠状切面 2230
(67.56)
3368
(81.84)
3522
(87.14)
180
(5.29)
146
(3.55)
134
(3.33)
2
(0.07)
0
(0)
0
(0)
920
(27.07)
602
(14.61)
385
(9.53)
脐带腹壁入口处横切面 3194
(93.89)
3906
(94.90)
3776
(93.44)
5
(0.15)
3
(0.07)
4
(0.10)
0
(0)
7
(0.17)
4
(0.10)
203
(5.97)
200
(4.86)
257
(6.36)
尺桡骨冠状切面 2396
(70.43)
3134
(76.14)
3198
(79.15)
491
(14.49)
560
(13.62)
533
(13.19)
2
(0.04)
0
(0)
0
(0)
512
(15.04)
422
(10.24)
310
(7.66)
胎盘下缘与宫颈内口矢状切面 2079
(61.11)
2546
(61.86)
2467
(61.05)
1036
(30.45)
1223
(29.71)
1202
(29.75)
5
(0.15)
6
(0.15)
5
(0.12)
282
(8.29)
341
(8.28)
367
(9.08)
膀胱水平横切面彩色多普勒 3197
(93.97)
3866
(93.93)
3795
(93.91)
11
(0.32)
9
(0.22)
7
(0.17)
10
(0.29)
21
(0.51)
11
(0.27)
184
(5.41)
220
(5.34)
228
(5.64)
股骨长轴切面 2760
(81.14)
3808
(92.52)
3819
(94.51)
2
(0.03)
2
(0.06)
35
(0.88)
20
(0.60)
14
(0.32)
30
(0.73)
620
(18.22)
292
(7.11)
157
(3.89)
肱骨长轴切面 2656
(78.04)
3726
(90.55)
3795
(93.91)
4
(0.09)
6
(0.16)
20
(0.48)
13
(0.40)
8
(0.16)
20
(0.49)
730
(21.47)
376
(9.14)
206
(5.11)
颈胸段脊柱矢状切面 2722
(79.98)
3582
(87.03)
3636
(89.98)
378
(11.14)
194
(4.71)
181
(4.48)
2
(0.03)
0
(0)
0
(0)
300
(8.85)
340
(8.26)
224
(5.54)
腰骶尾段脊柱矢状切面 2831
(83.22)
3606
(87.61)
3727
(92.23)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
376
(11.05)
291
(7.07)
157
(3.89)
195
(5.73)
219
(5.32)
157
(3.89)
表3 申诉情况比较
1
Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Berghella V, et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines (updated): performance of the routine mid‐trimester fetal ultrasound scan[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2022, 59(6): 840-856.
2
中华医学会超声医学分会妇产超声学组, 国家卫生健康委妇幼司全国产前诊断专家组医学影像组. 超声产前筛查指南[J]. 中华超声影像学杂志, 2022, 31(1): 1-12.
3
Walsh CA, Lees N. Prevalence of anomalies on the routine mid‐trimester ultrasound: 3172 consecutive cases by a single maternal–fetal medicine specialist[J]. Australas J Ultrasound Med, 2023, 27(1): 12-18.
4
Haj Yahya R, Roman A, Grant S, et al. Antenatal screening for fetal structural anomalies–Routine or targeted practice?[J]. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, 2024, 96: 102521.
5
Salomon LJ, Ville Y. The science and art of quality in obstetric ultrasound[J]. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol, 2009, 21(2): 153-160.
6
Wu L, Cheng JZ, Li S, et al. FUIQA: Fetal Ultrasound Image Quality Assessment With Deep Convolutional Networks[J]. IEEE Trans Cybern, 2017, 47(5): 1336-1349.
7
卓秋銮, 卫红艳, 姜新魁, 等. 双闭环管理人工智能质量控制模式在产前超声切面质量控制中的应用价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(1): 90-96.
8
谭莹, 文华轩, 彭桂艳, 等. 产科超声图像智能质控系统的效能[J]. 中国医学影像技术, 2022, 38(9): 1361-1366.
9
郭旭, 林艺榕, 余卫峰, 等. 人工智能在早孕期胎儿颅脑超声切面质量评价中的应用[J]. 中国超声医学杂志, 2025, 41(1): 62-66.
10
黄文兰, 谭莹, 彭桂艳, 等. 人工智能质控系统在11~13+6周胎儿颈后透明层超声标准切面判断中的应用[J]. 中华超声影像学杂志, 2023, 32(9): 807-812.
11
Cavallaro A, Ash ST, Napolitano R, et al. Quality control of ultrasound for fetal biometry: results from the INTERGROWTH‐21st Project[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2018, 52(3): 332-339.
12
Salomon LJ, Winer N, Bernard JP, et al. A score‐based method for quality control of fetal images at routine second‐trimester ultrasound examination[J]. Prenat Diagn, 2008, 28(9): 822-827.
13
张梅芳, 谭莹, 朱巧珍, 等. 早孕期胎儿头臀长正中矢状切面超声图像的人工智能质控研究[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(9): 945-950.
[1] 陆思妤, 王红燕, 高璐滢, 蔡思曼, 李建初, 姜玉新. 基于多中心大样本的乳腺超声报告质量问题与原因分析[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2026, 23(05): 360-368.
[2] 陈曼, 郑雯, 常才, 俞清, 肖沪生, 赵宝珍, 施仲伟, 陈悦, 李丽蟾, 王文平. 上海市超声诊断设备配置现状调查与质量控制管理策略优化[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2026, 23(05): 369-373.
[3] 赵卓非, 赖贝金, 孙德胜. 深圳市超声医学质量管理与控制现状分析[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2026, 23(05): 374-379.
[4] 陆爱美, 朱玲斐, 邱勤, 谢晓红, 张意珍. 品管圈在颈动脉超声检查质量控制中的应用效果[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2026, 23(05): 380-386.
[5] 卓秋銮, 庞慧贤, 卫红艳, 姜新魁, 姜伟. 常规超声切面联合心底短轴切面、肺动脉分叉切面对常见胎儿先天性心脏病的诊断价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2026, 23(05): 408-415.
[6] 王燕妮. AI在创面管理中的潜力与挑战[J/OL]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2026, 21(04): 320-320.
[7] 高嘉敏, 韩俊毅. 老年胃肠癌患者多模式预康复:异质性挑战与分类管理策略[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2026, 20(03): 192-199.
[8] 孟凡征, 王阳清, 张珅瑜, 刘连新. 人工智能在肝癌微创外科中的发展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(04): 307-310.
[9] 王葵, 林宇轩, 沈皓, 沈锋. 人工智能化在肝癌微创外科的实践[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(04): 311-314.
[10] 王鑫, 阎龙, 戴朝六. 人工智能化与个体化在肝癌微创外科的应用[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(04): 315-318.
[11] 李佳颖, 刘溪, 陈宇航, 桂程鹏, 习明, 陈炜, 罗俊航. 卷积神经网络在预测肾透明细胞癌全视野数字切片肿瘤坏死中的应用研究[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(04): 389-398.
[12] 刘诗馨, 宋晓微, 武剑. 临床视角下人工智能赋能脑卒中康复的范式重塑[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(03): 231-239.
[13] 梁怡凡, 牟婧宇, 吴雅婷, 邳靖陶, 陈乐, 武剑. 不同人工智能模型预测脑卒中不良预后诊断效能的荟萃分析[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(03): 308-319.
[14] 张思远, 宋晓微, 王丽君, 范玉华, 武剑. 人工智能赋能脑小血管病的血流动力学评估:研究进展与临床转化[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(03): 327-333.
[15] 徐林, 简讯, 刘道权, 易东, 鄢华. 人工智能在心脑血管内介入诊疗中的应用进展——从单一影像模式到多模态影像融合[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(03): 334-341.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?