Comparison of Cardiotocography and Fetal Heart Rate Estimators Based on Non-Invasive Fetal ECG

Rasmus G. Sæderup, H. Zimmermann, Dagbjört Helga Eiriksdóttir, J. Hansen, J. Struijk, S. Schmidt
{"title":"Comparison of Cardiotocography and Fetal Heart Rate Estimators Based on Non-Invasive Fetal ECG","authors":"Rasmus G. Sæderup, H. Zimmermann, Dagbjört Helga Eiriksdóttir, J. Hansen, J. Struijk, S. Schmidt","doi":"10.23919/CinC49843.2019.9005838","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Non-invasive fetal ECG (NI-FECG) extraction algorithms enable long-term continuous beat-to-beat monitoring of the fetal heart rate (FHR), as opposed to the gold standard in FHR monitoring, cardiotocography (CTG). We investigate how NI-FECG extraction algorithms selected from the CinC 2013 Challenge (CinC13) perform on data with low quality signals and how performance can be evaluated using CTG, when FQRS annotation is not possible.Four-channel NI-FECG was recorded simultaneously with a CTG trace on 22 pregnant women, gestational age 29-41 weeks. Seven algorithms were tested: The winning CinC13 entry from Varanini et al. and six algorithms from the unofficial top-scoring CinC13 entry by Behar et al. Two accuracy measures were used: 1) The RMSE between the FECG-based FHR and CTG traces; 2) The Pearson correlation coefficient r between the FECG-based FHR and CTG trace and its average over all recordings, $\\bar r$.The algorithms with the lowest RMSE’s are Behar’s FUSE-SMOOTH, a constant FHR, and Varanini, while the Varanini algorithm delivers the best correlation with the CTG trace $(\\bar r = 0.73)$ with 41% of the recordings having r > 0.8, whereas the other algorithms have $\\bar r \\leq 0.59$ and ≤ 29% of the recordings with r > 0.8. FHR was estimated accurately in some recordings and poorly in others, believed to be due to large differences in signal quality.","PeriodicalId":6697,"journal":{"name":"2019 Computing in Cardiology (CinC)","volume":"162 1","pages":"Page 1-Page 4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2019 Computing in Cardiology (CinC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23919/CinC49843.2019.9005838","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Non-invasive fetal ECG (NI-FECG) extraction algorithms enable long-term continuous beat-to-beat monitoring of the fetal heart rate (FHR), as opposed to the gold standard in FHR monitoring, cardiotocography (CTG). We investigate how NI-FECG extraction algorithms selected from the CinC 2013 Challenge (CinC13) perform on data with low quality signals and how performance can be evaluated using CTG, when FQRS annotation is not possible.Four-channel NI-FECG was recorded simultaneously with a CTG trace on 22 pregnant women, gestational age 29-41 weeks. Seven algorithms were tested: The winning CinC13 entry from Varanini et al. and six algorithms from the unofficial top-scoring CinC13 entry by Behar et al. Two accuracy measures were used: 1) The RMSE between the FECG-based FHR and CTG traces; 2) The Pearson correlation coefficient r between the FECG-based FHR and CTG trace and its average over all recordings, $\bar r$.The algorithms with the lowest RMSE’s are Behar’s FUSE-SMOOTH, a constant FHR, and Varanini, while the Varanini algorithm delivers the best correlation with the CTG trace $(\bar r = 0.73)$ with 41% of the recordings having r > 0.8, whereas the other algorithms have $\bar r \leq 0.59$ and ≤ 29% of the recordings with r > 0.8. FHR was estimated accurately in some recordings and poorly in others, believed to be due to large differences in signal quality.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于无创胎儿心电图的心脏造影和胎儿心率估计器的比较
无创胎儿心电图(NI-FECG)提取算法能够长期连续监测胎儿心率(FHR),而不是FHR监测的金标准,心脏造影(CTG)。我们研究了从cinc2013挑战赛(CinC13)中选择的NI-FECG提取算法在低质量信号数据上的表现,以及在不可能进行FQRS注释时如何使用CTG评估性能。对22例孕龄29-41周的孕妇同时记录四通道NI-FECG和CTG。测试了七种算法:来自Varanini等人的获奖CinC13条目和来自Behar等人的非官方得分最高的CinC13条目的六种算法。采用两种精度测量方法:1)基于FHR和CTG迹线的RMSE;2)基于feg的FHR与CTG迹线的Pearson相关系数r及其在所有记录上的平均值,$\bar r$。RMSE最低的算法是Behar的FUSE-SMOOTH算法,FHR恒定,Varanini算法,而Varanini算法与CTG迹线的相关性最好$(\bar r = 0.73)$为41% of the recordings having r > 0.8, whereas the other algorithms have $\bar r \leq 0.59$ and ≤ 29% of the recordings with r > 0.8. FHR was estimated accurately in some recordings and poorly in others, believed to be due to large differences in signal quality.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
An Automated Approach Based on a Convolutional Neural Network for Left Atrium Segmentation From Late Gadolinium Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Multiobjective Optimization Approach to Localization of Ectopic Beats by Single Dipole: Case Study Sepsis Prediction in Intensive Care Unit Using Ensemble of XGboost Models A Comparative Analysis of HMM and CRF for Early Prediction of Sepsis Blocking L-Type Calcium Current Reduces Vulnerability to Re-Entry in Human iPSC-Derived Cardiomyocytes Tissue
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1