ArticleIEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine2025
Cross-Database Evaluation of Deep Learning Methods for Intrapartum Cardiotocography Classification.
Article in IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A multidimensional ensemble pipeline for early detection of IUGR condition through CTG.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Automated interpretation of cardiotocography using deep learning in a nationwide multicenter study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- AI-augmented prenatal care: a dual-modal fetal health assessment system integrating cardiotocography and uterine contraction synergy.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Continuous monitoring of fetal heart rate (FHR) and uterine contractions (UC), otherwise known as cardiotocography (CTG), is often used to assess the risk of fetal compromise during labor. However, interpreting CTG recordings visually is challenging for clinicians, given the complexity of CTG patterns, leading to poor sensitivity. Efforts to address this issue have focused on data-driven deep-learning methods to detect fetal compromise automatically. However, their progress is impeded by limited CTG training datasets and the absence of a standardized evaluation workflow, hindering algorithm comparisons. In this study, we use a private CTG dataset of 9,887 CTG recordings with pH measurements and 552 CTG recordings from the open-access CTU-UHB dataset to conduct a cross-database evaluation of six deep-learning models for fetal compromise detection. We explore the impact of input selection of FHR and UC signals, signal pre-processing, downsampling frequency, and the influence of removing intermediate pH samples from the training dataset. Our findings reveal that using only FHR and pre-processing FHR with artefact removal and interpolation provides a significant improvement to classification performance for some model architectures while excluding intermediate pH samples did not significantly improve performance for any model. From our comparison of the six models, ResNet exhibited the strongest fetal compromise classification performance across both databases at a downsampling rate of 1Hz. Finally, class activation maps from highly contributing signal regions in the ResNet model aligned with clinical knowledge of compromised FHR patterns, highlighting the model's interpretability. These insights may serve as a standardized reference for developing and comparing future works in this domain. Clinical and Translational Impact: This study provides a standardized workflow for comparing deep-learning methods for CTG classification. Ensuring new methods show generalizability and interpretability will improve their robustness and applicability in clinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.