| Literature DB >> 33987454 |
Shahad Al-Yousif1,2, Ariep Jaenul3, Wisam Al-Dayyeni1, Ah Alamoodi4, Ihab Jabori5, Nooritawati Md Tahir6, Ali Amer Ahmed Alrawi7, Zafer Cömert8, Nael A Al-Shareefi9, Abbadullah H Saleh10.
Abstract
CONTEXT: The interpretations of cardiotocography (CTG) tracings are indeed vital to monitor fetal well-being both during pregnancy and childbirth. Currently, many studies are focusing on feature extraction and CTG classification using computer vision approach in determining the most accurate diagnosis as well as monitoring the fetal well-being during pregnancy. Additionally, a fetal monitoring system would be able to perform detection and precise quantification of fetal heart rate patterns.Entities:
Keywords: Acceleration; Baseline; Cardiotocography; Classification; Diagnoses; Feature extraction; Fetal Heart Rate; Uterine contraction; Variability
Year: 2021 PMID: 33987454 PMCID: PMC8093951 DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.452
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ Comput Sci ISSN: 2376-5992
Figure 1Article selection, search query and inclusion criteria.
Search query settings.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 2013–2018 | 2013–2018 | 2013–2018 |
|
| English | English | English |
|
| Full Text | Full Text | Full Text |
|
| All Available | All Available | All Available |
|
| 17/03/2018 | 17/03/2018 | 20/03/2018 |
Figure 2The research literature taxonomy on automatic feature extraction and classification of cardiotocography.
Figure 3Articles number based on main categories and the database.
Figure 4The number of articles in each category based on the year of publication.
Figure 5Articles number based on the author’s affiliation.
Dataset used in reviewed research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | Publicly available | Each record provides information about morphological patterns (physiological, suspect, pathological) | |
| 2 | | Publicly available | Consisting of 552 records obtained between 2009 and 2012 | |
| 3 | | Private Datasets | Intrapartum CTG has been routinely monitored in HFME for the past 30 years, with systematic monitoring based on STAN | |
| 4 | | Publicly Available | Normal and Pathological datasets | |
| 5 | | Private Dataset | Normal fetuses and IUGRs |
|
| 6 | | Private Dataset | 22 cases were included with adverse results, which was matched with 110 healthy cases |
|
| 7 | | Private Dataset | Retrospective nesting case-control studies including a series of consecutive fetuses delivered with metabolic acidemia in the second stage of labor between 2008 and 2013 |
|
| 8 | | Private Dataset | 100 and 51 CTG tracings were consecutively selected from pre-existing database of intrapartum tracings. |
|
| 9 | | Commercial Dataset | Recorded from healthy pregnant women | |
| 10 | | Commercial Dataset | All CTGs are recorded during routine daily fetal monitoring in the clinical environment of women between 31 and 41 weeks of gestation both on antepartum and in intrapartum | |
| 11 | | Private Dataset | Ninety-seven traces of the FHR were selected among those collected between June and September 2009 |
|
| 12 | | Private Dataset | Sixty-two CTG searches with 20 to 30-minutes of sections collected from different pregnant women at the time of entry to the delivery room for labor pain |
|
| 13 | | Private Dataset | Datasets consists of 2126 cardiotocograms |
|
Model validation techniques used in the reviewed researches.
| No | Name of Validation Technique | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cross Validation (10 fold cross validation, k-fold cross validation and 2 fold stratified cross validation) | |
| 2 | Confidence interval | |
| 3 | Paired sample | |
| 4 | Bland-Altman approach | |
| 5 | Mann–Whitney test | |
| 6 | Kappa Statistics | |
The performance measurement criteria implemented in the reviewed articles.
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| * |
| ||||||||||||||||||||
|
| * | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
| * | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
| * | * | * | * | * | * | * | |||||||||||||||
|
| * | * | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
| * | * | * | |||||||||||||||||||
|
| * | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
| * | * | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
| * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | ||||||||||||
|
| * | * | * | |||||||||||||||||||
|
| * | * | * | * | * | |||||||||||||||||
|
| * | * | * | |||||||||||||||||||
|
| * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | ||||||||||||||
|
| * | * | * | * | ||||||||||||||||||
|
| * | * | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
| * | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
| * | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
| * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | |||||||||||
|
| * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | |||||||||||||
|
| * | * | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
| * | * | * | |||||||||||||||||||
|
| * | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
| * | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
| * | * | * | * | * | * | ||||||||||||||||
|
| * | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
| * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | ||||||||||||||
|
| * | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
| * | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
| * | * | * | * | * | |||||||||||||||||
|
| * | * | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
| * | * | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
| * | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
| * | * | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
| * | * | * | * | ||||||||||||||||||
|
| * | * | * | |||||||||||||||||||
|
| * | * | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
| * | * | * | * | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 6Motivation categories of feature extraction and cardiotocography classification.
Number of different guidelines occurrence in the study.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| 1 | FIGO (International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology) | |
| 2 | NICHD (the National Institute of Child Health Development) | |
| 3 | NICE (National Institute of Health and Care Excellence) | |
| 4 | ACOG (the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) | |
| 5 | RCOG (the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) | |
| 6 | CNGOF (the French College of Gynecology and Obstetrics) | |
| 7 | NICHHD (the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development) | |
Motivation to adopt cardiotocography classification techniques and methods.
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Random Forest | Random forest is widely used in statistical modeling techniques and one of the most promising methods appears ( |
| 2 | Volterra Neural Network (VNN) | VNN has fast and uniform convergence. Simulation has demonstrated the efficiency of this techniques as proposed in electronic fetal monitoring ( |
| 3 | A Novel Software “CTG-OAS” | |
| 4 | Scattering Transform | Scattering transformation is proposed as a new tool for analyzing the variability of intrapartum fetal heart rate (FHR). This consists of a nonlinear extension of the underlying wavelet transformation, thereby maintaining its multiscale nature ( |
| 5 | Bagging Approach | In this study, a bagging approach combined with three traditional decision tree algorithms (random forest, Reduced Error Pruning Tree (REPTree) and J48) has been applied to identify normal and pathological fetal conditions using CTG data ( |
| 6 | Support Vector Machine (SVM) | SVM gives good accuracy ( |
| 7 | Artitifical Neural Network (ANN) | ANN is a practical tool to solve many complex nature signal processing problems, such as curve installation, pattern recognition and classification, grouping and analysis of dynamic time series ( |
| 8 | Extreme Learning Machine (ELM) | ELM tends to provide good generalization performance with fast learning speed in many cases and can learn thousands of times faster than conventional learning ( |
| 9 | K Nearest Neighbor | The classification method based on K Nearest Neighbor is presented for automatic classification of various uterine construction during labor ( |
| 10 | The Adaptive Boosting (AdaBoost) | Typical ensemble learning algorithms, this study proposed new design concepts and make great success in many different practical applications ( |
| 11 | Fuzzy Classification System | The possibility of assessing the efficient state of the fetus using the proposed fuzzy inference method ( |
| 12 | Sparse Support Vector Machine (Sparse-SVM) | Permits to select a small number of relevant features and to achieve efficient fetal acidosis detection ( |
Challenge categories of feature extraction and cardiotocography classification.
| Challenge related to algorithm | • The REPTree algorithm has low accuracy especially in the accuracy of suspected pathological status for small training sets. |
| Challenge related to diagnosis | • The knowledge and experience of the doctor largely influences accuracy; |
| • Increasing cesarean delivery rates is one of the main reasons caused by a lack of information provided by cardiotocography; | |
| • The available evidence about the accuracy and efficacy of this system is still limited. | |
| Challenge related to guidelines | • In the guidelines there is still lack of objective explanations for some features of fetal heart rate; |
| • The existing guidelines have deficiencies in terms of uniformity and uncertainty, therefore it is difficult to implement automatic systems; | |
| • There is still lack of precision, leading to differences of opinion among medical practitioners; | |
| • FIGO results poor specificity; | |
| • guidelines have not become more simple or more objective; | |
| • Differ in the terminology used; | |
| • NICHD system was rapidly criticized by some investigators; | |
| • The usefulness of NICHD system is under debate; | |
| • no evidence of NICHD effectiveness. | |
| Challenge related to features | • Many different pattern in the gray zone; |
| • Baseline is the most basic feature of FHR; | |
| • The missing value problem is another problem that needs to be resolved; | |
| • Features extracted from histogram data are less important; | |
| • very difficult to assess; | |
| • Complex FHR patterns are assessed with eyes that are prone to errors, inconsistent and unreliable; | |
| • The complexity of patterns describing the FHR variability makes the visual signal interpretation difficult and the accuracy of the analysis depends mostly on clinician’s knowledge and experience; | |
| • The UA signal is often of poor quality. | |
| Challenge related to waveform | • The FHR waveform has a complex form; |
| • The FHR waveform is a source of a lot of information, only a small portion can be extracted by visual analysis; | |
| • Heart rate signals often show complex and irregular fluctuations. | |
| Challenge related to dimensionality | • The high dimension of CTG data are the problem for classification computation; |
| • There is no guarantee that dimensions are higher and computing time is greater; | |
| • K-SVM reduces the feature dimension, however features of other data with similar samples are not reduced. | |
| Challenge related to CTG interpretation | • Increased birth by caesarean section and less specific in detecting acidosis; |
| • Subjective interpretation and tedious technique; | |
| • Poor specificity, not always possible; | |
| • Unnecessary intervention; | |
| • Poor positive predictive value; | |
| • no standardization in the interpretation of the information; | |
| • because the fetus is in the womb, several measurement problems arise; | |
| • high complexity of signal patterns, which results in high levels of intra and interobserver variability; | |
| • CTG has not proven its benefits in neonatal death and morbidity; | |
| • Conventional visual CTG interpretation is limited. | |
| Challenge related to classification | • The FHR pattern classification still needs further improvement; |
| • Ignoring the suspect cases; | |
| • Piquard classification was not applicable; | |
| • The risk of false classification of pathological cases remains high; | |
| • The predictive capacity of the existing methods remains inaccurate; | |
| • Traditional unsupervised methods provide very poor accuracy in predicting different classes. | |
| Challenge related to time of diagnosis | • Training time and test time takes longer; |
| • SVM consumes a lot of computational time | |
| Challenge related to ONG experts | • Expertise is not always available, making CTG evaluation a difficult task; |
| • Interpretation of CTG data after visual analysis performed by obstetricians cannot be objective; | |
| • the agreement between clinicians was moderate | |
| • CTG recordings are analyzed by experts visually who make subjective interpretations and cannot be reproduced. | |
| Challenge related to technical challege | • The FHR record suffers from samples that are often invalid or lost, due to sensor artifacts or error functions; |
| • great inter- and intra-observer variability; | |
| • Lack of patients identification still occurs in 8% of antepartum searches and 31% of intrapartum searches. | |
| Challenge related to dataset | • Data interpretation ambiguity; |
| • Lack of late acceleration in the dataset; | |
| • could not be objective and reproducible; | |
| • Outlier value problem. | |
| Challenge related to evaluation | • The classification uses a measure of performance evaluation, but it is not enough to decide for a vital case especially in a medical diagnosis; |
| • fetal hypoxia is only about 30% of the positive predictive value for intrapartum cases; | |
| • There has been a effective increase in surgical birth rate and intrapartum cesarean section ; | |
| • The standard definition of FHR variability (FHRV) and agreement on the methodology that will be used in its evaluation is still lacking; | |
| • ANN is still not accepted as a valid tool | |
| • One of the main disadvantages of Tocography is subjectivity in interpretation and has high frequency noise due to sudden movements during recording. |
Figure 7Recommended categories of feature extraction and cardiotocography classification.