• Main page
• About the journal
• Editorial board
• Subscription
• Information for contributors
• Editorial and Peer Review
• Issues archive
• Authors
• Articles
  • By alphabet
  • By category
• Blogs and comments

The journal is included into The list of leading scientific periodicals.

The journal is included into VINITI database and is registered in Electronic scientific library.

The journal is indexed by SCOPUS, Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory.

EBSCO

https://doi.org/10.14300/mnnc.2025.20070

The importance of a comprehensive assessment of fetometry and anthropometry in a pregnant woman for predicting the weight of a newborn

[Obstetrios and gynecology]
Eduard Mikhailovich Iutinsky; Lev Mikhailovich Zheleznov; Sergey Afanasyevich Dvoryansky;

Accurate prenatal fetal weight estimation is hindered by universal formulas that do not account for regional and maternal parameters, leading to errors in various populations. This study analyzed 5161 cases of term singleton pregnancies in the Kirov region (2018–2023): regional percentile curves for femur length (FL) and abdominal circumference (AC) were constructed using ultrasound data and compared with federal standards; mothers were stratified by BMI, age, and parity. A multiple linear model for fetal weight prediction was created with AC, FL, maternal weight, and height as predictors; accuracy was assessed using R2, MAE, RMSE, ME, and Bland – Altman analysis. Starting from 20 weeks, regional FL was 0.7–0.8 mm lower than the federal standard (p<0.01), and AC was 1–2 mm higher; the integrative model achieved R2=0.72 (vs. 0.60–0.65 for single-parameter models), MAE=6 % (200 g) vs. 7.5 % for Hadlock, ME +5 g vs. –120 g, limits of agreement ±710 g vs. ±820 g, and the rate of large errors (>10 %) was 18 % vs. 24 %. Combining regional fetal biometric standards with maternal anthropometry significantly increases the accuracy of neonatal weight prediction and eliminates systematic biases of universal formulas.

Download

References:
1. Chew L. C., Osuchukwu O. O., Reed D. J., Verma R. P. Fetal Growth Restriction. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan [updated 2024 Aug 11]. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK562268/
2. Lees C. C., Romero R., Stampalija T., Dall’Asta A., DeVore G. A. [et al.]. Clinical opinion: the diagnosis and management of suspected fetal growth restriction-an evidence-based approach. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2022;226(3):366-378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2021.11.1357
3. Lees C. C., Stampalija T., Baschat A., da Silva Costa F., Ferrazzi E. [et al.]. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: diagnosis and management of small-for-gestational-age fetus and fetal growth restriction. Ultrasound. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020;56(2):298-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.22134
4. Hadlock F. P., Harrist R. B., Carpenter R. J., Deter R. L., Park S. K. Sonographic estimation of fetal weight: the value of femur length in addition to head and abdomen measurements. Radiology. 1984;150(2):535-540. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.150.2.6691115
5. Zeng X., Zhu J., Zhang J. Establishing Chinese fetal growth standards: why and how. Matern. Fetal. Med. 2022;4(3):197-205. https://doi.org/10.1097/FM9.0000000000000157
6. Lindström L., Cnattingius S., Axelsson O., Granfors M. Accuracy and precision of sonographic fetal weight estimation in Sweden. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2023;102(6):699-707. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14554
7. Gevaerd Martins J., Kawakita T., Jain P., Gurganus M., Baraki D. [et al.]. Impact of maternal body mass index on the accuracy of third-trimester sonographic estimation of fetal weight. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2023;307(2):395-400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06495-3
8. Sgayer I., Awwad S., Aiob A., Mikhail S. M., Lowenstein L., Odeh M. Pre-delivery BMI and the accuracy of fetal weight estimation in very preterm infants. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 2024;46(10):102643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2024.102643
9. Vaughn-Valencia M. M., Zhao Y. D., Edwards R. K., Clifton S., Nadeau H. Fetal weight extrapolation following a third-trimester ultrasound examination using the gestation-adjusted projection method: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Perinatol. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2628-2364
10. Kumari C., Menon G. I., Narlikar L., Ram U., Siddharthan R. Accurate birth weight prediction from fetal biometry using the Gompertz model. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. X. 2024;24:100344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurox.2024.100344
11. Siskovicova A., Ferianec V., Krizko M., Alfoldi M., Kunochova I. [et al.]. Analysis of factors influencing ultrasound-based fetal weight estimation. Bratisl. Lek. Listy. 2023;124(1):25-28. https://doi.org/10.4149/BLL_2023_003
12. Mustafa H. J., Javinani A., Muralidharan V., Khalil A. Diagnostic performance of 32 vs 36 weeks ultrasound in predicting late-onset fetal growth restriction and small-for-gestational-age neonates: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. MFM. 2024;6(1):101246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2023.101246
13. Zhang C., Yu X., Zhang B. Assessment of supervised longitudinal learning methods: insights from predicting low birth weight and very low birth weight using prenatal ultrasound measurements. Comput. Biol. Med. 2024;182:109084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.109084
14. Liu R., Yao Y., Zhang C., Zhang B. An innovative supervised longitudinal learning procedure of recurrent neural networks with temporal data augmentation: insights from predicting fetal macrosomia and large-for-gestational-age. Comput. Biol. Med. 2024;177:108665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.108665
15. Victor A., Geremias Dos Santos H., Silva G. F. S., Barcellos Filho F., de Fátima Cobre A. [et al.]. Predictive modeling of gestational weight gain: a machine learning multiclass classification study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024;24(1):733. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06952-8
16. Ling Y., Wu H., Li J., Ma Y., Zhang S. [et al.]. Predictive value of maternal serum placental growth factor, maternal clinical features, and fetal ultrasound indicators in preeclampsia. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025;25(1):390. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-025-07517-z
17. Liu Q., Zhu S., Zhao M., Ma L., Wang C. [et al.]. Machine learning approaches for predicting fetal macrosomia at different stages of pregnancy: a retrospective study in China. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025;25(1):140. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-025-07239-2
18. Khodzhaeva Z. S., Stolyarova E. V., Kholin A. M., Gus A. I. An analytical review of recommendations for the management of pregnancies complicated by fetal growth restriction. Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya. – Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2024;8:5-13. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18565/aig.2024.93
19. Volochaeva M. V., Timofeeva A. V., Fedorov I. S., Kan N. E., Tyutyunnik V. L. [et al.]. A model for diagnosing fetal growth restriction using functional diagnostic methods. Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya. – Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2025;(2):31-39. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18565/aig.2025.15

Keywords: ultrasound fetometry, anthropometry of pregnant women, and prediction of newborn weight