Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36140076›Full record

ArticleBiosensors2022

Use of Deep Learning to Detect the Maternal Heart Rate and False Signals on Fetal Heart Rate Recordings.

Samuel Boudet, Agathe Houzé de l'Aulnoit, Laurent Peyrodie, Romain Demailly, Denis Houzé de l'Aulnoit

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biosensors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors.

Samuel BoudetFaculty of Medicine and Midwifery, ETHICS EA 7446 Lille Catholic University, F-59000 Lille, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5289-8591
Agathe Houzé de l'AulnoitObstetrics Department, Lille Catholic Hospital, Lille Catholic University, F-59020 Lille, France.ORCID 0000-0003-4770-9271
Laurent PeyrodieJunia Haut de France, F-59000 Lille, France.ORCID 0000-0001-6602-9584
Romain DemaillyFaculty of Medicine and Midwifery, ETHICS EA 7446 Lille Catholic University, F-59000 Lille, France.ORCID 0000-0003-1711-236X
Denis Houzé de l'AulnoitFaculty of Medicine and Midwifery, ETHICS EA 7446 Lille Catholic University, F-59000 Lille, France.ORCID 0000-0001-6894-3775

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We have developed deep learning models for automatic identification of the maternal heart rate (MHR) and, more generally, false signals (FSs) on fetal heart rate (FHR) recordings. The models can be used to preprocess FHR data prior to automated analysis or as a clinical alert system to assist the practitioner. Three models were developed and used to detect (i) FSs on the MHR channel (the FSMHR model), (ii) the MHR and FSs on the Doppler FHR sensor (the FSDop model), and (iii) FSs on the scalp ECG channel (the FSScalp model). The FSDop model was the most useful because FSs are far more frequent on the Doppler FHR channel. All three models were based on a multilayer, symmetric, GRU, and were trained on data recorded during the first and second stages of delivery. The FSMHR and FSDop models were also trained on antepartum recordings. The training dataset contained 1030 expert-annotated periods (mean duration: 36 min) from 635 recordings. In an initial evaluation of routine clinical practice, 30 fully annotated recordings for each sensor type (mean duration: 5 h for MHR and Doppler sensors, and 3 h for the scalp ECG sensor) were analyzed. The sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV) and accuracy were respectively 62.20%, 87.1% and 99.90% for the FSMHR model, 93.1%, 95.6% and 99.68% for the FSDop model, and 44.6%, 87.2% and 99.93% for the FSScalp model. We built a second test dataset with a more solid ground truth by selecting 45 periods (lasting 20 min, on average) on which the Doppler FHR and scalp ECG signals were recorded simultaneously. Using scalp ECG data, the experts estimated the true FHR value more reliably and thus annotated the Doppler FHR channel more precisely. The models achieved a sensitivity of 53.3%, a PPV of 62.4%, and an accuracy of 97.29%. In comparison, two experts (blinded to the scalp ECG data) respectively achieved a sensitivity of 15.7%, a PPV of 74.3%, and an accuracy of 96.91% and a sensitivity of 60.7%, a PPV of 83.5% and an accuracy of 98.24%. Hence, the models performed at expert level (better than one expert and worse than the other), although a well-trained expert with good knowledge of FSs could probably do better in some cases. The models and datasets have been included in the Fetal Heart Rate Morphological Analysis open-source MATLAB toolbox and can be used freely for research purposes.

Indexed as

Deep LearningLabor, ObstetricCardiotocographyElectrocardiographyFemaleHeart RateHeart Rate, FetalHumansPregnancycardiotocogramdeep learningfetal heart rategated recurrent unitmaternal heart rate

Identifiers

PMID36140076
PMCPMC9496277

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.