ArticlePloS one2021
A novel algorithm based on ensemble empirical mode decomposition for non-invasive fetal ECG extraction.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review on AI-driven noninvasive fetal ECG processing and analysis methods.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Pooled it
- A Deep Learning-Guided Ensemble Empirical Mode Decomposition Method for Single-Channel Fetal Electrocardiogram Extraction.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Fetal ECG Signal Extraction from Maternal Abdominal ECG Signals Using Attention R2W-Net.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Emerging Paradigms in Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring: Evaluating the Efficacy and Application of Innovative Textile-Based Wearables.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Effective Signal Extraction Algorithm for Cerebral Blood Oxygen Based on Dual Detectors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Pregnancy in the time of COVID-19: towards Fetal monitoring 4.0.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Review
- Independent component analysis algorithms for non-invasive fetal electrocardiography.PloS one · 2023Article
- Nature inspired method for noninvasive fetal ECG extraction.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Fetal Electrocardiogram Signal Extraction Based on Fast Independent Component Analysis and Singular Value Decomposition.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Correlation coefficient local capping REMD adaptive filtering method for laser interference signal.PloS one · 2022Article
- Optimization of adaptive filter control parameters for non-invasive fetal electrocardiogram extraction.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-invasive fetal electrocardiography appears to be one of the most promising fetal monitoring techniques during pregnancy and delivery nowadays. This method is based on recording electrical potentials produced by the fetal heart from the surface of the maternal abdomen. Unfortunately, in addition to the useful fetal electrocardiographic signal, there are other interference signals in the abdominal recording that need to be filtered. The biggest challenge in designing filtration methods is the suppression of the maternal electrocardiographic signal. This study focuses on the extraction of fetal electrocardiographic signal from abdominal recordings using a combination of independent component analysis, recursive least squares, and ensemble empirical mode decomposition. The method was tested on two databases, the Fetal Electrocardiograms, Direct and Abdominal with Reference Heartbeats Annotations and the PhysioNet Challenge 2013 database. The evaluation was performed by the assessment of the accuracy of fetal QRS complexes detection and the quality of fetal heart rate determination. The effectiveness of the method was measured by means of the statistical parameters as accuracy, sensitivity, positive predictive value, and F1-score. Using the proposed method, when testing on the Fetal Electrocardiograms, Direct and Abdominal with Reference Heartbeats Annotations database, accuracy higher than 80% was achieved for 11 out of 12 recordings with an average value of accuracy 92.75% [95% confidence interval: 91.19-93.88%], sensitivity 95.09% [95% confidence interval: 93.68-96.03%], positive predictive value 96.36% [95% confidence interval: 95.05-97.17%] and F1-score 95.69% [95% confidence interval: 94.83-96.35%]. When testing on the Physionet Challenge 2013 database, accuracy higher than 80% was achieved for 17 out of 25 recordings with an average value of accuracy 78.24% [95% confidence interval: 73.44-81.85%], sensitivity 81.79% [95% confidence interval: 76.59-85.43%], positive predictive value 87.16% [95% confidence interval: 81.95-90.35%] and F1-score 84.08% [95% confidence interval: 80.75-86.64%]. Moreover, the non-invasive ST segment analysis was carried out on the records from the Fetal Electrocardiograms, Direct and Abdominal with Reference Heartbeats Annotations database and achieved high accuracy in 7 from in total of 12 records (mean values μ < 0.1 and values of ±1.96σ < 0.1).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.