Comparison and evaluation of existing methods for the extraction of low amplitude electrocardiographic signals: a possible approach to transabdominal fetal ECG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analysis of the fetal ECG (fECG) allows physicians to detect changes in the well-being state of the fetus. But when assessing the fECG through the abdominal signals (ADS), its very low amplitude causes a problem, as the fECG representation in the ADS is buried in a mixture of other signals with stronger energy. Different methods have been proposed in the past to extract the transabdominal fECG for instantaneous fetal heart rate (fHR) computation; four representatives of them are selected for an accurate comparison of their performance in fECG extraction and in fHR estimation. A model for the ADS including all the possible disturbances is developed within this study to generate simulated data as they are required for the quantitative comparison of the algorithms. Their performances and limits considering both the enhancement of the fECG and the ability to preserve fECG morphology are analyzed using the simulated data. The results clearly show that linear methods for maternal ECG removal provide better results with respect to the extraction of the fECG morphology. The algorithms are then tested on real ADS data recorded during labor. Finally, the advantage of considering linear methods for ADS processing is discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".