ArticleScientific reports2024
Template subtraction based methods for non-invasive fetal electrocardiography extraction.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 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
- Comparison study of population-based methods for non-invasive fetal electrocardiography extraction.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Automated analysis of fetal heart rate baseline/acceleration/deceleration using MTU-Net3 + model.Biomedical engineering letters · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Assessment of fetal heart rate (fHR) through non-invasive fetal electrocardiogram (fECG) is challenging task. This study compares the performance of five template subtraction (TS) methods on Labor (12 5-min recordings) and Pregnancy datasets (10 20-min recordings). The methods include TS without adaptation, TS using singular value decomposition (TS[Formula: see text]), TS using linear prediction (TS[Formula: see text]), TS using scaling factor (TS[Formula: see text]), and sequential analysis (SA). The influence of the chosen maternal wavelet for the continuous wavelet transform (CWT) detector is also compared. The F1 score was used to measure performance. Each recording in both datasets consisted of four signals, resulting in a total comparison of 88 signals for the TS-based methods. The study reported the following results: F1 = 95.71% with TS, F1 = 95.93% with TS[Formula: see text], F1 = 95.30% with TS[Formula: see text], F1 = 95.82% with TS[Formula: see text], and F1 = 95.99% with SA. The study identified gaus3 as the suitable maternal wavelet for fetal R-peak detection using the CWT detector. Furthermore, the study classified signals from the tested datasets into categories of high, medium, and low quality, providing valuable insights for subsequent fECG signal extraction. This research contributes to advancing the understanding of non-invasive fECG signal processing and lays the groundwork for improving fetal monitoring in clinical settings.
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.