ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Comparison study of population-based methods for non-invasive fetal electrocardiography extraction.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper presents a comparative analysis of five popular population-based algorithms in the field of non-invasive fetal electrocardiogram (NI-fECG) extraction: (1) artificial bee colony (ABC), (2) gray wolf optimization (GWO), (3) moth flame optimization (MFO), (4) particle swarm optimization (PSO), and (5) whale optimization algorithm (WOA). The five optimization algorithms are used along with sequential analysis (SA) to extract the fetal electrocardiogram (fECG) signal that is present along with other signals in the abdominal electrocardiogram. The most prominent one is the mECG signal, which also overlaps with fECG in time and frequency domains making its extraction challenging. The extraction systems were tested on two available datasets (Labor and Pregnancy) and their efficiency was evaluated using the accuracy of the R-peak detection. The algorithms are stochastic in nature; therefore, the experiments were conducted 30 times independently to observe any potential instability. The results indicate that extraction systems with GWO, MFO, PSO, and WOA demonstrated similar performance in the task, showing comparable extraction accuracy. However, the ABC-based system performed poorly and exhibited instability. It is suggested that further investigation into hybrid approaches and further modifications to the ABC algorithm could potentially enhance its extraction accuracy.
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.