MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025596158 · doi:10.1088/0967-3334/36/5/l1

Sampling frequency of fetal heart rate impacts the ability to predict pH and BE at birth: a retrospective multi-cohort study

2015· article· en· W2025596158 on OpenAlexafffund
Xuan Li, Yawen Xu, Christophe L. Herry, Lucien Daniel Durosier, D. Casati, Tamara Stampalija, Émeline Maisonneuve, Andrew Seely, François Audibert, Žarko Alfirević, E. Ferrazzi, Xiaogang Wang, Martin G. Frasch

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiological Measurement · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité de MontréalOttawa HospitalYork University
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéMitacsCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchChildren Neurodevelopmental Disorders Network
KeywordsFetusFetal heart rateCohortSampling (signal processing)MedicineRetrospective cohort studyCohort studyObstetricsHeart rateInternal medicinePregnancyBiologyComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fetal heart rate (FHR) sampling rate used on the bedside is equal or less than 4 Hz. Current FHR analysis methods fail to detect incipient fetal acidemia. In a fetal sheep model of human labour we showed that FHR sampling rates near 1000 Hz are needed to detect fetal acidemia. Trans-abdominal fetal ECG (t-a fECG) sampling FHR at 900 Hz combined with a complex signals bioinformatics approach showed promise in a human cohort. Here we validate this finding in a retrospective human cohort study by comparing the performance of the same bioinformatics approach to predict pH and BE at birth in the cohorts with FHR sampled either at 4 Hz or at 900 Hz.The 4 Hz FHR recording data sets consisted of the open access intrapartum CTG data base with n = 552 subjects used to develop the predictive model and another cohort of prospectively recruited n = 11 labouring women to then validate it. 900 Hz FHR data set comprised two prospectively recruited t-a fECG cohorts of n = 60 and n = 23 subjects. Recruitment criteria were similar across the cohorts. We have determined the goodness of fit (R(2)) and root mean square error (RMSE) as the performance indicators of the model on each cohort.The clinical characteristics of all cohorts were similar (gestational age 280 ± 8 d; gender 50% male; birth body weight 3.5 ± 0.5 kg; pH and BE at birth 7.25 ± 0.1 and -5.7 ± 3.4 mmol L( - 1), respectively; 1' and 5' Apgar scores at birth 8.5 ± 1.4 and 9.4 ± 0.6, respectively). The 4 Hz FHR cohort rendered-for pH and BE-R(2) = 0.26 and 0.2 and RMSE = 0.087 and 3.44, respectively. This could not be confirmed in the validation cohort for neither pH nor BE prediction. The 900 Hz FHR cohort rendered-for pH and BE-R(2) = 0.9 and 0.77 and RMSE = 0.03 and 1.70, respectively, and the pH prediction was validated.In our model, lower FHR sampling rate increased the predicted error range ~3-4 fold. We show that increasing FHR sampling rate to 900 Hz improves prediction of fetal pH and BE at birth. This should improve early identification of babies at risk of brain injury.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.151
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiological MeasurementSame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207