ArticleComputing in cardiology2025
Classification of the Source of 1D Doppler Ultrasound Activity in Fetal Monitoring.
Article in Computing in cardiology, 2025. 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Cardiotocography and obstetric ultrasound imaging are the standard for fetal monitoring during pregnancy and labor. These technologies are often expensive and, with very few exceptions, can only be used by highly trained personnel. Medical care during gestation differs in low- to middle-income countries (LMIC) from high-income countries. Our research has previously demonstrated that a low-cost 1D Doppler ultrasound (DUS) can be used during pregnancy to assess maternal and fetal health. However, differentiation between DUS signals from the fetal heart (FH) and umbilical cord (UC) can be challenging for untrained users. Methods: We trained a random forest classifier to detect whether 1D DUS recordings originated from FH activity or UC blood flow. This classifier was trained using the relative energy in each 10 Hz interval of the power spectrum derived from a balanced set of recordings. We used leave-one-out cross-validation to test our results. Results: We achieved an area under the curve of 0.82 and an accuracy of 75% for identifying FH activity, and 84% for UC blood flow. Conclusions: It is possible to differentiate the source of the 1D Doppler ultrasound signal. Depending on the source, different clinical parameters can be analyzed, enabling more targeted assessments of maternal and fetal health.
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.