ArticleTechnology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine2022
Recognition of uterine contractions with electrohysterogram and exploring the best electrode combination.
Article in Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs an essential indicator of labour and delivery, uterine contraction (UC) can be detected by manual palpation, external tocodynamometry and internal uterine pressure catheter. However, these methods are not applicable for long-term monitoring.
objectiveThis paper aims to recognize UCs with electrohysterogram (EHG) and find the best electrode combination with fewer electrodes.
methods112 EHG recordings were collected by our bespoke device in our study. Thirteen features were extracted from EHG segments of UC and non-UC. Four classifiers of the decision tree, support vector machine (SVM), artificial neural network, and convolutional neural network were established to identify UCs. The optimal classifier among them was determined by comparing their classification results. The optimal classifier was applied to evaluate all the possible electrode combinations with one to eight electrodes.
resultsThe results showed that SVM achieved the best classification capability. With SVM, the combination of electrodes on the right part of the uterine fundus and around the uterine body's median axis achieved the overall best performance.
conclusionsThe optimal electrode combination with fewer electrodes was confirmed to improve the clinical application for long-term monitoring of UCs.
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.