OB/GYN AI Standard of Care: Fetal Monitoring, IVF, and Liability

AI Transforms Maternal-Fetal and Women’s Health

#

Obstetrics and gynecology represents a critical frontier for artificial intelligence in medicine, where the stakes include not one but often two patients simultaneously. From AI algorithms that analyze fetal heart rate patterns to predict acidemia to embryo selection systems that evaluate blastocyst quality, these technologies are reshaping reproductive medicine and maternal-fetal care. But with transformation comes profound liability questions: When an AI fails to detect fetal distress and a baby suffers hypoxic brain injury, who bears responsibility?

This guide examines the standard of care for AI use in OB/GYN, the expanding landscape of FDA-cleared devices, and the emerging liability framework for AI-assisted reproductive and maternal-fetal care.

FDA-Cleared OB/GYN AI Devices

#

Fetal Monitoring and Assessment

#

The most consequential category of OB/GYN AI involves fetal surveillance:

Major FDA-Cleared Fetal Monitoring AI Devices (2024-2025):

Recent FDA Clearances:

• FETOLY (Diagnoly) - September 2025 - Fetal assessment AI
• CHLOE BLAST (Fairtility) - August 2025 - IVF embryo assessment

IVF and Embryo Assessment

#

AI-powered reproductive medicine represents a rapidly growing category:

Clinical Applications:

• Embryo quality grading
• Blastocyst selection for transfer
• Implantation prediction
• Sperm morphology analysis
• Oocyte assessment

Major FDA-Cleared Devices:

Cervical Cancer Screening

#

AI enhances cervical cytology and colposcopy:

Applications:

• Pap smear analysis
• HPV triage
• Colposcopy guidance
• Cervical biopsy targeting

Major Devices:

Breast and Gynecologic Imaging

#

AI applications in women’s health imaging:

Applications:

• Mammography CAD
• Breast ultrasound analysis
• Ovarian mass characterization
• Endometrial assessment

The Liability Framework

#

The Two-Patient Problem

#

OB/GYN AI creates unique liability challenges because of the dual-patient nature:

Maternal vs. Fetal Interests:

• AI may optimize for one patient at expense of other
• Timing of delivery decisions involve competing interests
• Documentation must address both patients
• Informed consent complexity

The Central Question:

“When AI fetal monitoring suggests non-reassuring status, but intervention carries maternal risks, how should the algorithm’s output influence the clinical decision? And who is responsible if either patient suffers harm?”

High-Stakes Malpractice Environment

#

OB/GYN consistently involves the highest malpractice exposure:

Statistics:

• Highest average verdict amounts of any specialty
• Longest statute of limitations (child can sue until age 18-21)
• Birth injury cases often exceed $10 million
• Cerebral palsy and hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy most costly

AI Implications:

• AI documentation creates permanent record
• Pattern interpretation subject to hindsight review
• “The AI warned you” can be devastating in litigation
• Defense of clinical judgment vs. AI output is challenging

Liability Allocation

#

OB/GYN Physician Responsibility:

• AI fetal monitoring alerts are advisory
• Must maintain independent assessment capability
• Cannot delegate pattern interpretation entirely to AI
• Document reasoning for agreeing/disagreeing with AI
• Understand AI limitations in specific populations

Device Manufacturer Responsibility:

• Clear labeling of sensitivity/specificity
• Training requirements disclosure
• Known limitations documentation
• Post-market surveillance
• Timely communication of safety issues

Institution Responsibility:

• Proper AI integration into L&D workflow
• Training for nursing and physician staff
• Escalation protocols when AI alerts
• Quality monitoring and outcome tracking
• Adequate staffing to respond to AI alerts

Clinical Applications and Risk Areas

#

Intrapartum Fetal Monitoring

#

The Problem:

• CTG interpretation has high inter-observer variability
• Category II (indeterminate) tracings are most challenging
• Timing of intervention decisions is critical
• Defensive medicine leads to excessive cesarean rates

AI Solution: Systems like PeriWatch Vigilance and K2 Guardian provide:

• Continuous automated pattern analysis
• Standardized terminology and classification
• Alert escalation for concerning patterns
• Documentation of pattern evolution over time

Liability Concerns:

False Negatives (Missed Distress):

• AI fails to recognize developing acidemia
• Delivery delayed based on “reassuring” AI output
• Baby born with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy
• Permanent neurological injury

False Positives (Over-Intervention):

• AI alerts to “non-reassuring” pattern
• Unnecessary cesarean section performed
• Maternal complications from surgery
• Or: Alert ignored, outcome is good, but pattern established

Case Pattern: Missed Fetal Distress Patient in labor with AI fetal monitoring. AI classifies tracing as Category I (normal) or II (indeterminate). L&D nurse and physician rely on AI classification. Subtle pattern changes not highlighted by AI. Baby born with cord pH 6.9, develops cerebral palsy. Expert testimony: Experienced clinician would have recognized the pattern.

IVF and Embryo Selection

#

The Stakes:

• IVF success rates approximately 30-40% per cycle
• Patient emotional and financial investment is enormous
• Wrong embryo selection can mean years of additional treatment
• Genetic considerations add complexity

AI Role:

• CHLOE BLAST and similar systems evaluate blastocyst morphology
• iDAScore predicts implantation probability
• AI can outperform manual grading in some studies
• Standardizes assessment across embryologists

Liability Considerations:

• AI recommends embryo that fails to implant (or results in miscarriage)
• AI recommendation differs from embryologist assessment
• Multiple embryo transfers with AI selection
• Genetic abnormalities missed or falsely predicted

Unique IVF Issues:

• No “alternative outcome” comparison (can’t test the non-transferred embryo)
• Damages difficult to quantify (is it the lost embryo or the delayed pregnancy?)
• Emotional distress as primary harm
• Consent for AI-assisted selection

Cervical Cancer Screening

#

AI Applications:

• Automated Pap smear reading
• Triage of HPV-positive patients
• Colposcopy guidance for biopsy
• Risk stratification

Liability Issues:

• False negative cytology (missed precancer/cancer)
• False positive leading to unnecessary procedures
• LEEP complications from over-treatment
• Delay in diagnosis of invasive cancer

The Screening Paradox: AI may improve overall sensitivity but still misses individual cases. When a patient develops cervical cancer after “normal” AI screening, liability questions arise even if AI performs better than human cytology on average.

Prenatal Screening and Diagnosis

#

Emerging AI Applications:

• Ultrasound anomaly detection
• Cell-free DNA analysis enhancement
• Fetal growth assessment
• Preeclampsia risk prediction

Liability Considerations:

• Wrongful birth claims if anomaly missed
• Wrongful life claims (in some jurisdictions)
• Termination decisions based on AI assessment
• False positive causing unnecessary anxiety or termination

ACOG Guidelines and Standards

#

ACOG Committee Opinion on AI (2024)

#

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has addressed AI:

Key Recommendations:

Fetal Monitoring:

• AI-assisted CTG interpretation can standardize assessment
• Does not replace need for trained clinical interpretation
• Nursing and physician competency in pattern recognition must be maintained
• AI should integrate with existing tiered response systems

Reproductive Medicine:

• AI embryo selection is an evolving technology
• Patients should be informed when AI is used in IVF
• Clinic validation of AI performance recommended
• Human embryologist oversight remains standard

Cervical Screening:

• AI-assisted cytology can improve efficiency
• Does not eliminate need for pathologist review
• Quality assurance programs must include AI assessment
• Algorithm validation in diverse populations important

Practice Bulletins Addressing AI-Related Issues

#

Electronic Fetal Monitoring (Practice Bulletin 116):

• Standardized terminology essential
• AI can help apply NICHD categories consistently
• Clinical context must guide interpretation
• Documentation of pattern and response required

Cervical Cancer Screening (Practice Bulletin 168):

• New technologies require validation
• AI screening must meet established performance benchmarks
• Integration with HPV testing important
• Follow-up protocols must be maintained regardless of AI use

Standard of Care for OB/GYN AI

#

What Reasonable Use Looks Like

#

Fetal Monitoring:

• AI as additional layer of pattern recognition
• Maintain independent interpretation capability
• Respond appropriately to AI alerts
• Document pattern assessment and clinical reasoning
• Don’t rely solely on AI for Category II management

IVF:

• Inform patients that AI assists embryo selection
• Embryologist retains final selection authority
• Document concordance/discordance with AI
• Track outcomes for quality improvement
• Validate AI performance in your clinic

Cervical Screening:

• AI as efficiency tool, not sole reader
• Maintain pathologist oversight
• Quality assurance includes AI performance monitoring
• Follow established screening intervals regardless of AI

What Falls Below Standard

#

Fetal Monitoring Failures:

• Sole reliance on AI classification without clinical assessment
• Ignoring AI alerts without documentation
• Not recognizing AI limitations (artifact, unusual patterns)
• Inadequate staffing to respond to AI alerts
• No training on AI system capabilities/limitations

IVF Failures:

• No informed consent for AI-assisted selection
• Ignoring embryologist concerns about AI recommendation
• No validation of AI in your patient population
• Failure to track outcomes by AI selection

Cervical Screening Failures:

• Using AI as sole reader without pathologist oversight
• Not validating AI performance
• Ignoring quality assurance data showing AI problems
• Changing screening intervals based solely on AI

Malpractice Considerations

#

The Birth Injury Landscape

#

OB malpractice involving AI will increasingly include:

AI Evidence in Discovery:

• Full AI output documentation typically preserved
• Pattern evolution over time recordable
• Alert history and response times documented
• AI “recommended” action may be clear

Defense Challenges:

• “The computer warned you” is powerful plaintiff narrative
• AI documentation more detailed than human charting
• Hindsight bias applies to AI predictions too
• Jury may trust AI over physician judgment

Plaintiff Challenges:

• AI is not perfect (sensitivity <100%)
• Clinical judgment still paramount
• AI limitations may explain apparent miss
• Causation still must be proven

High-Value Birth Injury Cases

#

Typical Elements:

1. AI fetal monitoring in use during labor
2. AI either missed pattern (false negative) or alerted without response
3. Baby born with acidemia/hypoxia
4. Permanent neurological injury (CP, developmental delay)
5. Lifetime care costs calculated ($10M+)
6. Multiple defendants: hospital, OB, nursing, AI vendor

Defense Strategies:

• AI used according to labeling and training
• Clinical judgment applied appropriately
• AI limitations recognized and accounted for
• Response to alerts was reasonable
• Injury occurred despite reasonable care

IVF Malpractice Considerations

#

Emerging Issues:

• AI recommended embryo that failed to implant
• AI recommendation differed from embryologist
• Multiple cycles with AI selection
• Damages: emotional distress, additional cycle costs, age-related decline

Unique Defenses:

• IVF success never guaranteed
• AI improves average outcomes even with individual failures
• Embryologist maintained oversight
• Proper informed consent obtained

Informed Consent Considerations

#

Disclosing AI Use

#

Fetal Monitoring:

• General consent for monitoring typically sufficient
• Specific AI disclosure not currently required
• Consider mentioning for research/novel systems
• Institution policies vary

IVF:

• Stronger argument for specific AI disclosure
• Patient investment (emotional, financial) is enormous
• AI influences specific embryo selected for transfer
• Trend toward explicit AI consent in fertility clinics

Cervical Screening:

• General screening consent typically sufficient
• May mention if AI is primary screening method
• Patient may have preferences about human review

Risk Communication

#

Balancing Information:

• AI accuracy statistics may confuse patients
• False positive/negative rates relevant but complex
• Focus on clinical decision-making process
• AI as tool, not decision-maker

Frequently Asked Questions

#

Related Resources

#

AI Liability Framework

#

• AI Misdiagnosis Case Tracker, Diagnostic failure documentation
• AI Product Liability, Strict liability for AI systems
• Radiology AI Standard of Care, Diagnostic imaging AI

Healthcare AI

#

• Healthcare AI Standard of Care, Overview of medical AI standards
• AI Medical Device Adverse Events, FDA MAUDE analysis
• Cardiology AI Standard of Care, Cardiovascular AI liability

Emerging Litigation

#

• AI Litigation Landscape 2025, Overview of AI lawsuits