Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29899707›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in physiology2018

Comparative Effectiveness of ICA and PCA in Extraction of Fetal ECG From Abdominal Signals: Toward Non-invasive Fetal Monitoring.

Radek Martinek, Radana Kahankova, Janusz Jezewski, Rene Jaros, Jitka Mohylova, Marcel Fajkus, Jan Nedoma, Petr Janku, Homer Nazeran

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. [Fetal ECG extraction using temporal convolutional encoder-decoder network].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Radek MartinekDepartment of Cybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, VSB-Technical University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czechia.
Radana KahankovaDepartment of Cybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, VSB-Technical University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czechia.
Janusz JezewskiInstitute of Medical Technology and Equipment ITAM, Zabrze, Poland.
Rene JarosDepartment of Cybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, VSB-Technical University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czechia.
Jitka MohylovaDepartment of General Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, VSB-Technical University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czechia.
Marcel FajkusDepartment of Telecommunications, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, VSB-Technical University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czechia.
Jan NedomaDepartment of Telecommunications, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, VSB-Technical University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czechia.
Petr JankuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Masaryk University and University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czechia.
Homer NazeranDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Texas El Paso, El Paso, TX, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-adaptive signal processing methods have been successfully applied to extract fetal electrocardiograms (fECGs) from maternal abdominal electrocardiograms (aECGs); and initial tests to evaluate the efficacy of these methods have been carried out by using synthetic data. Nevertheless, performance evaluation of such methods using real data is a much more challenging task and has neither been fully undertaken nor reported in the literature. Therefore, in this investigation, we aimed to compare the effectiveness of two popular non-adaptive methods (the ICA and PCA) to explore the non-invasive (NI) extraction (separation) of fECGs, also known as NI-fECGs from aECGs. The performance of these well-known methods was enhanced by an adaptive algorithm, compensating amplitude difference and time shift between the estimated components. We used real signals compiled in 12 recordings (real01-real12). Five of the recordings were from the publicly available database (PhysioNet-Abdominal and Direct Fetal Electrocardiogram Database), which included data recorded by multiple abdominal electrodes. Seven more recordings were acquired by measurements performed at the Institute of Medical Technology and Equipment, Zabrze, Poland. Therefore, in total we used 60 min of data (i.e., around 88,000 R waves) for our experiments. This dataset covers different gestational ages, fetal positions, fetal positions, maternal body mass indices (BMI), etc. Such a unique heterogeneous dataset of sufficient length combining continuous Fetal Scalp Electrode (FSE) acquired and abdominal ECG recordings allows for robust testing of the applied ICA and PCA methods. The performance of these signal separation methods was then comprehensively evaluated by comparing the fetal Heart Rate (fHR) values determined from the extracted fECGs with those calculated from the fECG signals recorded directly by means of a reference FSE. Additionally, we tested the possibility of non-invasive ST analysis (NI-STAN) by determining the T/QRS ratio. Our results demonstrated that even though these advanced signal processing methods are suitable for the non-invasive estimation and monitoring of the fHR information from maternal aECG signals, their utility for further morphological analysis of the extracted fECG signals remains questionable and warrants further work.

Indexed as

electronic fetal monitoring (EFM)fetal electrocardiogram (fECG)independent component analysis (ICA)nonadaptive methodsnon-invasive fetal ECG (NI-fECG)non-invasive fetal heart rate (NI-fHR) estimationnon-invasive ST analysis (NI-STAN)principal component analysis (PCA)

Identifiers

PMID29899707
PMCPMC5988877

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.