ArticlePloS one2023
Independent component analysis algorithms for non-invasive fetal electrocardiography.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper 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
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
The independent component analysis (ICA) based methods are among the most prevalent techniques used for non-invasive fetal electrocardiogram (NI-fECG) processing. Often, these methods are combined with other methods, such adaptive algorithms. However, there are many variants of the ICA methods and it is not clear which one is the most suitable for this task. The goal of this study is to test and objectively evaluate 11 variants of ICA methods combined with an adaptive fast transversal filter (FTF) for the purpose of extracting the NI-fECG. The methods were tested on two datasets, Labour dataset and Pregnancy dataset, which contained real records obtained during clinical practice. The efficiency of the methods was evaluated from the perspective of determining the accuracy of detection of QRS complexes through the parameters of accuracy (ACC), sensitivity (SE), positive predictive value (PPV), and harmonic mean between SE and PPV (F1). The best results were achieved with a combination of FastICA and FTF, which yielded mean values of ACC = 83.72%, SE = 92.13%, PPV = 90.16%, and F1 = 91.14%. Time of calculation was also taken into consideration in the methods. Although FastICA was ranked to be the sixth fastest with its mean computation time of 0.452 s, it had the best ratio of performance and speed. The combination of FastICA and adaptive FTF filter turned out to be very promising. In addition, such device would require signals acquired from the abdominal area only; no need to acquire reference signal from the mother's chest.
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.