ArticlePloS one2022
A comparative study of single-channel signal processing methods in fetal phonocardiography.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Enhanced short-term carbon emission forecasting via hybrid decomposition-denoising modeling.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fetal phonocardiography is a non-invasive, completely passive and low-cost method based on sensing acoustic signals from the maternal abdomen. However, different types of interference are sensed along with the desired fetal phonocardiography. This study focuses on the comparison of fetal phonocardiography filtering using eight algorithms: Savitzky-Golay filter, finite impulse response filter, adaptive wavelet transform, maximal overlap discrete wavelet transform, variational mode decomposition, empirical mode decomposition, ensemble empirical mode decomposition, and complete ensemble empirical mode decomposition with adaptive noise. The effectiveness of those methods was tested on four types of interference (maternal sounds, movement artifacts, Gaussian noise, and ambient noise) and eleven combinations of these disturbances. The dataset was created using two synthetic records r01 and r02, where the record r02 was loaded with higher levels of interference than the record r01. The evaluation was performed using the objective parameters such as accuracy of the detection of S1 and S2 sounds, signal-to-noise ratio improvement, and mean error of heart interval measurement. According to all parameters, the best results were achieved using the complete ensemble empirical mode decomposition with adaptive noise method with average values of accuracy = 91.53% in the detection of S1 and accuracy = 68.89% in the detection of S2. The average value of signal-to-noise ratio improvement achieved by complete ensemble empirical mode decomposition with adaptive noise method was 9.75 dB and the average value of the mean error of heart interval measurement was 3.27 ms.
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.