Organizations: Nepal Applied Mathematics and Informatics Institute for research (NAAMII), Nepal · GE HealthCare · Institute of Medicine (IOM), Tribhuvan University, Nepal
Blind Sweep Obstetric Ultrasound (BSOU) enables scalable fetal imaging in low-resource settings by allowing minimally trained operators to acquire standardized sweep videos for automated Artificial Intelligence(AI) interpretation. However, the reliability of such AI systems depends critically on the quality of the acquired sweeps, and little is known about how deviations from the intended protocol affect downstream predictions. In this work, we present a systematic evaluation of BSOU quality and its impact on three key AI tasks: sweep-tag classification, fetal presentation classification, and placenta-location classification. We simulate plausible acquisition deviations, including reversed sweep direction, probe inversion, and incomplete sweeps, to quantify model robustness, and we develop automated quality-assessment models capable of detecting these perturbations. To approximate real-world deployment, we simulate a feedback loop in which flagged sweeps are re-acquired, showing that such correction improves downstream task performance. Our findings highlight the sensitivity of BSOU-based AI models to acquisition variability and demonstrate that automated quality assessment can play a central role in building reliable, scalable AI-assisted prenatal ultrasound workflows, particularly in low-resource environments.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: 6-sweep BSOU protocol
Figure 2: A quality control pipeline in obstetric ultrasound scans, using QA to ensure acceptable sweep quality before processing for downstream tasks.
Task
Accuracy/F1_macro
Accuracy/F1_macro
(Perturbed test set)
(sweep level, %)
(patient level, %)
Sweep tags
29.36 / 28.13
–
Fetal presentation
66.44 / 56.34
75.00 / 67.52
Placenta location
78.25 / 77.69
89.50 / 89.24
Table 1: Performance metrics for downstream tasks, showing accuracy and macro F1 scores at both the sweep and patient levels, when the test set is perturbed.
Figure 3: Correct sweep acquisition and three scanning errors - Incomplete sweep, Sequence reversal, and Probe flip
Task
Accuracy/F1_macro
Sequence reversal
97.42/97.34
Probe flipping
99.67/99.24
Incomplete sweep
88.76/85.34
Table 2: Performance of the QA model for various ultrasound sweep perturbation classification tasks
Task
Accuracy/F1_macro
Δ
Accuracy/F1_macro
Δ
(sweep level, %)
%
(patient level, %)
(%)
Sweep tags
69.79 / 69.98
40.43/41.85
–
–
Fetal presentation
83.75 / 75.40
17.31/19.06
85.00 / 75.63
10.00/8.11
Placenta location
88.58 / 88.40
10.33/10.71
93.00 / 92.94
3.50/3.70
Table 3: Performance of AI models for downstream task after simulated retake of detected perturbed sweep
Medical Ultrasound Image Computing (MUSIC) Lab, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China · School of Biomedical Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China · School of Biomedical EngineeringNanjing,and Informatics,China Nanjing Medical University +4