ClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT07476638Updated Aug 6, 2026

Impact of AI Feedback on Ultrasound Biometry Accuracy Across the Expertise Levels

An interventional study of AI interventional group in Fetal Growth Abnormalities and Fetal Weight, sponsored by Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation. Recruiting at 3 sites in Denmark. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-08-06.

Sponsored by Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation · Not applicable, Interventional, and Diagnostic

From the registry’s dates

  • Started Mar 2026; still recruiting 8 months later.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
75
Allocation
Randomized
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Objective: To evaluate the impact of real-time AI feedback on fetal biometry accuracy and investigate the Expertise Reversal Effect-whether AI benefits diminish as user experience increases.

Design: A stratified randomized trial of 75 participants (25 Novices, 25 Intermediates, 25 Experts). Users are randomized 1:1 to either AI-assisted or manual measurement groups.

Outcomes:

  • Primary: EFW accuracy (MAPE) compared to actual birthweight.
  • Secondary: Procedure time, image quality, error relative to baseline scans, and cognitive workload (NASA-TLX).
Read the detailed description

Study Overview: This study evaluates how real-time Artificial Intelligence (AI) feedback impacts the accuracy of fetal biometry measurements in obstetric ultrasound. While AI tools are designed to assist clinicians, their effectiveness may vary depending on the user's baseline skill level-a phenomenon known as the "Expertise Reversal Effect."

Research Aim: The primary objective is to determine if AI-guided feedback significantly reduces measurement error in ultrasound fetal weight estimation to traditional manual methods. The study specifically investigates whether the benefit of AI is greater for novice users, intermediate users users than for experienced specialists.

Study Design: This is a stratified, randomized controlled trial involving 75 participants categorized into three expertise tiers:

Novices (e.g., students or residents with minimal scan experience).

Intermediate Users (e.g., physicians in mid-level training).

Experts (e.g., senior specialists).

Participants within each tier will be randomized 1:1 to either the AI-Assisted Group (receiving real-time automated plane validation and calipers) or the Control Group (performing standard manual biometry).

Primary Outcome Measure: Accuracy of Estimated Fetal Weight (EFW): The Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) of the EFW relative to the actual birthweight, assessing the clinical impact of AI assistance on weight prediction.

Secondary Outcome Measures:

  • Procedural Efficiency: Total procedure time (probe-to-skin) required to complete the biometry.
  • Image Quality: Objective assessment of captured planes based on standardized salomon criteria.
  • Relative Measurement Error: Deviation of estimated fetal weight when compared to a standard (expert-validated) ultrasound scan.
  • Subjective Workload: Evaluation of cognitive load and user effort using the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX).
  • Determination of Experience Threshold: Defining the 'cutoff' in clinical experience (years and total scans) for significant AI-mediated accuracy gains.
02

Conditions studied

  • Fetal Growth Abnormalities
  • Fetal Weight

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Artificifial Intelligence feedback
  • Fetal weight estimation
  • Expertise reversal effect
  • Cognitive load
  • Explainable AI
  • Ultrasound
  • third trimester
03

In context

Fetal Weight

17 studies on the registry are indexed under Fetal Weight; 7 are open to participants now.

Browse Fetal Weight studies →

Lead sponsor

Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation is the lead sponsor of 27 studies on the registry; 6 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
Child (0–17), Adult (18–64), Older adult (65+)
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Eligibility criteria

Clinical Target Population: Healthcare professionals and students, including but not limited to:

  • Medical students (doing their masters.
  • Resident physicians and Senior Consultants in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Exclusion:

- If the participants do not understand and speak either Danish or English

Pregnant women:

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Pre pregnancy \< 40
  • Singelton pregnancy
  • GA ≥ 37+0 at time of induction
  • Intact membranes (to ensure consistent amniotic fluid index)

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Major fetal anatomical anomaly
  • Anhydramnios (DVP \< 2 cm)
  • CPR ratio \< 2.5th percentile
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(1)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

BMI (body mass index)

Weight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared. Example: 70 kg and 1.75 m gives 70 ÷ (1.75 × 1.75) ≈ 22.9.

What counts as overweight or obesity differs between countries (some use lower cut-offs), so go by the range the study states.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Diagnostic
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
75 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • No intervention
    Control Group

    Participants in the control arm perform fetal biometry using standard manual techniques without any AI assistance.

  • Experimental
    AI intervention Group

    The software provides real-time "traffic light" or score-based feedback to validate when the correct anatomical plane (BPD, HC, AC, or FL) has been reached.

    Device: AI interventional group

Interventions

  • DeviceAI interventional group

    Participants in the intervention arm perform fetal biometry with the assistance of real-time Artificial Intelligence (AI) feedback software.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. To evaluate the sensitivity to change in ultrasound measurement accuracy when using AI-feedback compared to standard scanning

    Mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), defined as the absolute difference between estimated fetal weight (EFW) and actual birth weight (ABW) divided by actual birth weight and expressed as a percentage, for AI-assisted and manual fetal biometry.

    Time frame: The two scans will be performed within a timeframe of 14 days.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Procedural Efficacy

    Scan duration (seconds) will be modeled as the dependent variable to assess the tem-poral impact of the AI-feedback.

    Time frame: The duration of the scan, maximum of 30 minutes

  2. Image Quality

    Salomon Quality Score on the 16-point fetal biometry plane quality scale, comparing AI-assisted and manual ultrasound acquisition. The scale ranges from 0 to 16, with higher scores indicating better anatomical plane quality.

    Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 year.

  3. Cognitive and Physiological Load

    Both the NASA-TLX (subjective) and GSR (objective) data will be modeled as de-pendent variables. These analyses will determine if the AI-intervention significantly alters the mental effort or autonomic stress response during the procedure.

    Time frame: During the ultrasound procedure (GSR) and immediately following the procedure (NASA-TLX), approximately 30 minutes in total.

  4. Measurement Deviation:

    The absolute difference between the participant's EFW and a baseline EFW performed of an experienced clinician, will be modeled to assess if AI reduces inter-observer variability.

    Time frame: The duration from pre study scan and study scan.

  5. Experience Threshold for AI-Mediated Accuracy Gains

    Estimated interaction effect between operator experience (continuous, experience level) and intervention (AI-assisted vs manual) on mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), and the corresponding experience level at which the adjusted difference in MAPE between groups is not statistically significant.

    Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 1 year.

07

Study locations

2 of 3 sites recruiting
08

References and documents

Study documents

PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Aug 6, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07476638
Lead sponsor
Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation
Collaborators
Rigshospitalet, Denmark, Slagelse Hospital
Responsible party
Mary Le Ngo (MD, PhD student, Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation) — Principal investigator
First posted
Mar 17, 2026
Start date
Mar 1, 2026
Primary completion
Mar 1, 2027 (estimated)
Completion
Mar 1, 2027 (estimated)
Last update
Aug 6, 2026

Study contacts

Mary Le Ngo, Medical Doctor (MD), PhD stude
Contact
mary.van.anh.le.ngo.01@regionh.dk
+45 20773779

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion