| Literature DB >> 33286515 |
Javier Mas-Cabo1, Yiyao Ye-Lin1, Javier Garcia-Casado1, Alba Díaz-Martinez1, Alfredo Perales-Marin2, Rogelio Monfort-Ortiz2, Alba Roca-Prats2, Ángel López-Corral2, Gema Prats-Boluda1.
Abstract
Electrohysterography (EHG) has been shown to provide relevant information on uterine activity and could be used for predicting preterm labor and identifying other maternal fetal risks. The extraction of high-quality robust features is a key factor in achieving satisfactory prediction systems from EHG. Temporal, spectral, and non-linear EHG parameters have been computed to characterize EHG signals, sometimes obtaining controversial results, especially for non-linear parameters. The goal of this work was to assess the performance of EHG parameters in identifying those robust enough for uterine electrophysiological characterization. EHG signals were picked up in different obstetric scenarios: antepartum, including women who delivered on term, labor, and post-partum. The results revealed that the 10th and 90th percentiles, for parameters with falling and rising trends as labor approaches, respectively, differentiate between these obstetric scenarios better than median analysis window values. Root-mean-square amplitude, spectral decile 3, and spectral moment ratio showed consistent tendencies for the different obstetric scenarios as well as non-linear parameters: Lempel-Ziv, sample entropy, spectral entropy, and SD1/SD2 when computed in the fast wave high bandwidth. These findings would make it possible to extract high quality and robust EHG features to improve computer-aided assessment tools for pregnancy, labor, and postpartum progress and identify maternal fetal risks.Entities:
Keywords: Electrohysterogram (EHG); Lempel–Ziv; Time-reversibility; myoelectric uterine activity; postpartum; sample entropy; spectral content; spectral entropy
Year: 2020 PMID: 33286515 PMCID: PMC7517284 DOI: 10.3390/e22070743
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Entropy (Basel) ISSN: 1099-4300 Impact factor: 2.524
Figure 1EHG recordings distribution according to the obstetric scenario in which they were obtained for the Ci2B-La Fe and TPEHG databases (Upper figure) and the different recording protocols associated with each obstetric scenario (Lower figure). Protocol A is for the Active phase of labor and Gestation recordings. Trace B is used for the Postpartum group and trace C for the TPEHGDB. Note that represents the patient’s navel.
Figure 2Distribution of temporal and spectral EHG parameters in different obstetric scenarios (Term, Preterm, Gestation, Active phase of labor and Postpartum) for the TPEHG public database (green) and Ci2B-La Fe database (orange). Note that SMR is the abbreviation of spectral moment ratio.
Figure 3Distribution of non-linear EHG parameters computed in the WBW in the different obstetric scenarios (Term, Preterm, Gestation, Active phase of labor and Postpartum) for the TPEHG public database (green) and Ci2B-La Fe database (orange).
Figure 4Distribution of non-linear EHG parameters computed in the FWH bandwidth in the different obstetric scenarios (Term, Preterm, Gestation, Active phase of labor and Postpartum) for the TPEHG public database (green) and Ci2B-La Fe database (orange).
p-Values for the temporal and spectral EHG parameters when comparing different obstetric scenarios. Significant differences (p < 0.05) are shaded.
| Term vs. Preterm | Gest. vs. APL | Post. vs. APL | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10th | 50th | 90th | 10th | 50th | 90th | 10th | 50th | 90th | |
| RMS | 0.74 | 0.61 | 0.04 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| DF | 0.99 | 0.68 | 0.46 | 0.47 | 0.08 | 0.02 | 0.56 | 0.14 | 0.14 |
| Dec3 | 0.97 | 0.11 | 0.04 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.04 | 0.04 | <0.01 |
| Dec5 | 0.86 | 0.16 | 0.07 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.19 | 0.04 | <0.01 |
| Dec7 | 0.88 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.10 |
| SMR | <0.01 | 0.13 | 0.36 | 0.02 | 0.13 | 0.17 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
p-Values for the non-linear EHG parameters computed in the WBW when comparing different obstetric scenarios. Significant differences (p < 0.05) are shaded.
| Term vs. Preterm | Gest. vs. APL | Post. vs. APL | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10th | 50th | 90th | 10th | 50th | 90th | 10th | 50th | 90th | |
| Lempel-Ziv | 0.03 | 0.38 | 0.46 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| Samp. Entropy | <0.01 | 0.07 | 0.49 | 0.43 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| Time Rev | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.98 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.04 | 0.22 | 0.11 |
| Spec. Entropy | <0.01 | 0.12 | 0.57 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| RatioSD1/SD2 | <0.01 | 0.12 | 0.56 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
p-values for the non-linear EHG parameters computed in the FWH bandwidth when comparing different obstetric scenarios. Significant differences (p < 0.05) are shaded.
| Term vs. Preterm | Gest. vs. APL | Post. vs. APL | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10th | 50th | 90th | 10th | 50th | 90th | 10th | 50th | 90th | |
| Lempel-Ziv | 0.07 | 0.55 | 0.91 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| Samp. Entropy | <0.01 | 0.05 | 0.37 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.12 | 0.010 | 0.04 |
| Time Rev | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.76 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.07 |
| Spec. Entropy | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.82 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.81 | 0.18 | 0.16 | 0.16 |
| RatioSD1/SD2 | <0.01 | 0.03 | 0.27 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |