Faculty of Medicine and Midwifery, ETHICS EA 7446 Lille Catholic University, F-59000 Lille, France.
Obstetrics Department, Lille Catholic Hospital, Lille Catholic University, F-59020 Lille, France.
Biosensors (Basel). 2022 Aug 27;12(9):691. doi: 10.3390/bios12090691.
We have developed deep learning models for automatic identification of the maternal heart rate (MHR) and, more generally, false signals (FSs) on fetal heart rate (FHR) recordings. The models can be used to preprocess FHR data prior to automated analysis or as a clinical alert system to assist the practitioner. Three models were developed and used to detect (i) FSs on the MHR channel (the FSMHR model), (ii) the MHR and FSs on the Doppler FHR sensor (the FSDop model), and (iii) FSs on the scalp ECG channel (the FSScalp model). The FSDop model was the most useful because FSs are far more frequent on the Doppler FHR channel. All three models were based on a multilayer, symmetric, GRU, and were trained on data recorded during the first and second stages of delivery. The FSMHR and FSDop models were also trained on antepartum recordings. The training dataset contained 1030 expert-annotated periods (mean duration: 36 min) from 635 recordings. In an initial evaluation of routine clinical practice, 30 fully annotated recordings for each sensor type (mean duration: 5 h for MHR and Doppler sensors, and 3 h for the scalp ECG sensor) were analyzed. The sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV) and accuracy were respectively 62.20%, 87.1% and 99.90% for the FSMHR model, 93.1%, 95.6% and 99.68% for the FSDop model, and 44.6%, 87.2% and 99.93% for the FSScalp model. We built a second test dataset with a more solid ground truth by selecting 45 periods (lasting 20 min, on average) on which the Doppler FHR and scalp ECG signals were recorded simultaneously. Using scalp ECG data, the experts estimated the true FHR value more reliably and thus annotated the Doppler FHR channel more precisely. The models achieved a sensitivity of 53.3%, a PPV of 62.4%, and an accuracy of 97.29%. In comparison, two experts (blinded to the scalp ECG data) respectively achieved a sensitivity of 15.7%, a PPV of 74.3%, and an accuracy of 96.91% and a sensitivity of 60.7%, a PPV of 83.5% and an accuracy of 98.24%. Hence, the models performed at expert level (better than one expert and worse than the other), although a well-trained expert with good knowledge of FSs could probably do better in some cases. The models and datasets have been included in the Fetal Heart Rate Morphological Analysis open-source MATLAB toolbox and can be used freely for research purposes.
我们已经开发了深度学习模型,用于自动识别母体心率 (MHR),更普遍的是,用于自动识别胎儿心率 (FHR) 记录中的假信号 (FS)。这些模型可用于在自动分析之前预处理 FHR 数据,也可作为临床警报系统,以协助从业者。我们开发了三种模型,用于检测:(i) MHR 通道上的 FS (FSMHR 模型),(ii) 多普勒 FHR 传感器上的 MHR 和 FS (FSDop 模型),以及 (iii) 头皮 ECG 通道上的 FS (FSScalp 模型)。FSDop 模型最为有用,因为 FS 在多普勒 FHR 通道上更为常见。所有三种模型都基于多层、对称的 GRU,并且在分娩第一和第二阶段记录的数据上进行了训练。FSMHR 和 FSDop 模型也在产前记录上进行了训练。训练数据集包含 1030 个由专家标记的时段 (平均持续时间:36 分钟),来自 635 次记录。在对常规临床实践的初步评估中,分析了每个传感器类型的 30 个完全标记的记录 (MHR 和多普勒传感器的平均持续时间为 5 小时,头皮 ECG 传感器的平均持续时间为 3 小时)。FSMHR 模型的灵敏度、阳性预测值 (PPV) 和准确性分别为 62.20%、87.1%和 99.90%,FSDop 模型的灵敏度、PPV 和准确性分别为 93.1%、95.6%和 99.68%,FSScalp 模型的灵敏度、PPV 和准确性分别为 44.6%、87.2%和 99.93%。我们通过选择 45 个记录 (平均持续时间为 20 分钟) 来构建第二个测试数据集,这些记录同时记录了多普勒 FHR 和头皮 ECG 信号。使用头皮 ECG 数据,专家可以更可靠地估计真实的 FHR 值,从而更准确地标记多普勒 FHR 通道。模型的灵敏度为 53.3%,PPV 为 62.4%,准确性为 97.29%。相比之下,两位专家 (对头皮 ECG 数据不知情) 的灵敏度分别为 15.7%、PPV 为 74.3%和准确性为 96.91%,以及灵敏度为 60.7%、PPV 为 83.5%和准确性为 98.24%。因此,模型的表现达到了专家水平 (优于一位专家,逊于另一位专家),尽管经过良好训练、对 FS 有深入了解的专家在某些情况下可能会表现得更好。模型和数据集已包含在胎儿心率形态分析的开源 MATLAB 工具箱中,可免费用于研究目的。