Automated quality assessment shows 98.96% label accuracy in abdominal ultrasound scans, indicating potential for improved clinical workflows.
Abdominal ultrasound is non-invasive and efficient, yet acquiring standard planes remains challenging due to operator dependency and procedural complexity. We propose AbVLM-Q, a vision-language framework for automated quality assessment of abdominal ultrasound standard planes. In this study, we assembled a multi-center dataset comprising 7,766 abdominal ultrasound scans, which were randomly divided into training (70%), validation (15%), and testing (15%) subsets. The proposed method, AbVLM-Q, was developed using a three-step approach: (1) hierarchical prompting that incorporates spatially aware querying and sequential reasoning; (2) a quantifiable scoring mechanism based on multi-level clinical penalty criteria; and (3) LoRA (Low-Rank Adaptation)-based fine-tuning of a pretrained vision-language model. Performance was evaluated using mean recall, precision, label accuracy, subset accuracy, and confusion matrix analysis. The system achieved key structure detection with 88.90% mean recall and 98.10% precision, showing higher precision and comparable recall to Faster R-CNN (89.77% recall, 88.64% precision at a 0.5 confidence threshold). Plane classification yielded 98.96% label accuracy and 96.28% subset accuracy, surpassing the best CNN (97.84%, 94.29%; P < 0.05). Image scoring accuracy for the clinically critical "Excellent" grade (scores 8–10) reached 85.11% with the best-performing backbone. Confusion matrix analysis confirmed consistent performance across different backbones, with discrepancies primarily observed at grade boundaries. AbVLM-Q provides a novel method for automated ultrasound quality assessment, functioning as both an evaluation tool and a training platform for standardized scanning. It bridges AI-driven imaging analysis with clinical workflows, enhancing quality control in ultrasound diagnostics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: