ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025
Development of a novel artificial intelligence algorithm for interpreting fetal heart rate and uterine activity data in cardiotocography.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Self-Reported Knowledge, Attitudes, Perceptions, and Readiness Regarding AI Among Obstetrics and Gynecology Trainees: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Non-inferiority analysis of a fetal heart rate artificial intelligence algorithm to registered nurse assessment.Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- AI-assisted fetal heart monitoring: a CTG classification model combining attention mechanism and convolutional neural networks.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Prediction of Neonatal Length of Stay in High-Risk Pregnancies Using Regression-Based Machine Learning on Computerized Cardiotocography Data.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
Introduction: Cardiotocography (CTG) assesses fetal well-being through measurements of fetal heart rate (FHR) and uterine activity (UA). Manual visual assessment of fetal tracings is variable due to the subjective nature of their interpretation. Artificial intelligence (AI) using automatic signal processing may be leveraged to support consistent, comprehensive interpretations. This study demonstrated the development and training of a novel AI algorithm that analyzes and interprets certain clinical events and parameters calculated during labor to assist with clinical decisions. Methods: Fetal tracings sourced from 19 birthing centers through a US-based healthcare delivery organization were clinically interpreted, labeled, quality checked, and ratified by clinicians to be included in the study. The algorithm using deep learning and rule-based techniques was developed to identify segments of interest (accelerations, decelerations, and contractions). A three parallel one-dimensional Unet design with two inputs (FHR and UA) and one channel output each (for accelerations, decelerations, and contractions) was selected as the final architecture. Algorithm performance was evaluated through recall (sensitivity), precision, Results: A total of 133,696 patient files were used to create fetal tracings. After the exclusion, labeling, and ratification processes, the final datasets included 1,600 tracings for training, 421 for validation, and 591 for testing. The model provided promising performance and achieved Conclusion: This study demonstrates the successful development of a novel AI algorithm utilizing FHR and UA data to analyze and interpret fetal tracing events and parameters. The algorithm may have potential to enhance patient care by supporting bedside clinician CTG interpretation.
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.