| Literature DB >> 22985830 |
Gaetano D Gargiulo1, Richard W Shephard, Jonathan Tapson, Alistair L McEwan, Paolo Bifulco, Mario Cesarelli, Craig Jin, Ahmed Al-Ani, Ning Wang, André van Schaik.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pregnancy testing in cattle is commonly invasive requiring manual rectal palpation of the reproductive tract that presents risks to the operator and pregnancy. Alternative non-invasive tests have been developed but have not gained popularity due to poor specificity, sensitivity and the inconvenience of sample handling. Our aim is to present the pilot study and proof of concept of a new non invasive technique to sense the presence and age (limited to the closest trimester of pregnancy) of the foetus by recording the electrical and audio signals produced by the foetus heartbeat using an array of specialized sensors embedded in a stand alone handheld prototype device. The device was applied to the right flank (approximately at the intercept of a horizontal line drawn through the right mid femur region of the cow and a vertical line drawn anywhere between lumbar vertebrae 3 to 5) of more than 2000 cattle from 13 different farms, including pregnant and not pregnant, a diversity of breeds, and both dairy and beef herds. Pregnancy status response is given "on the spot" from an optimized machine learning algorithm running on the device within seconds after data collection.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22985830 PMCID: PMC3532070 DOI: 10.1186/1746-6148-8-164
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Study 1 result
| Sub_01_1209 | P | 25 weeks | 70 | 156 | 2.23 |
| Sub_02_1209 | P | 22 weeks | 66 | 155 | 2.36 |
| Sub_03_1209 | P | 24 weeks | 78 | 148 | 1.89 |
| Sub_04_1209 | P | 28 weeks | 56 | 143 | 2.55 |
| Sub_05_1209 | P | 6 weeks | 75 | 168 (PPG not detectable) | 2.25 |
| Sub_06_1209 | P | 26 weeks | 62 | 143 | 2.30 |
| Sub_01_0508 | P | 20 weeks | 71 | 150 | 2.10 |
| Sub_03_0508 | P | 32 weeks | 68 | 110 | 1.62 |
| Sub_01_0909 | P | 12 weeks | 81 | 158 (PPG not detectable) | 1.95 |
Highlighted in bold are the data used to plot the example Figures 2 and 3.
Figure 1Prototype device unit and its parts.
Figure 2Simultaneous recording of foetus PCG, foetus ECG and maternal ECG; Top trace depicts foetus PCG; the solid circle highlights 1st (loud) cardiac sound and the dashed circle highlights the 2nd (weak) cardiac sound. The second and third traces from the top present the foetus ECG; the solid squares highlight the foetus QRS complexes. Maternal ECG (with QRS highlighted by dashed rectangles) is presented in the lower trace.
Figure 3Evidence of independence between maternal and foetus QRS events; Panel a: example of foetus QRS occurring just before the maternal QRS; Panel b: example of foetus QRS occurring just after the maternal QRS. The top trace in both panels depicts foetus PCG; the solid circle highlights the 1st (loud) cardiac sound and the dashed circle highlights the 2nd (weak) cardiac sound. The second and third traces from the top present the foetus ECG; solid squares highlight the foetus QRS complexes. Maternal ECG (QRS highlighted with dashed rectangles) is depicted in the bottom trace.
Performance comparison between combined and separate electrical (ECG) and audio (PCG) foetus sensing for pregnancy detection
| ECG only (no rejections) | 85.2% | 70.1% |
| PCG only ≥ 20 weeks | 87.7% | 73.2% |
| ECG and PCG combined (19% rejected) | 87.6% | 74.6% |
Figure 4Example of use of prototype device (Courtesy of HEARD systems; the depicted subject kindly agreed to have his image published).
Figure 5Example of data acquired from a 20-week pregnant cow using the prototype device. This device has eight channels (7 ECG and 1 PCG). The detected foetus QRS complexes are highlighted with solid squares across the ECG channels; first and second cardiac sounds are highlighted with a solid circles and dashed circles on the PCG channel respectively.