MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137431738 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2009.2014878

Identification of the Dynamic Relationship Between Intrapartum Uterine Pressure and Fetal Heart Rate for Normal and Hypoxic Fetuses

2009· article· en· W2137431738 on OpenAlexaff
Philip Warrick, Emily Hamilton, Doina Precup, Robert E. Kearney

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiotocographyFetal heart rateFetusHeart rateNonparametric statisticsImpulse responseMedicineComputer scienceCardiologyInternal medicineBlood pressurePregnancyMathematicsStatisticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Labor and delivery are routinely monitored electronically with sensors that measure and record maternal uterine pressure (UP) and fetal heart rate (FHR), a procedure referred to as cardiotocography (CTG). Delay or failure to recognize abnormal patterns in these recordings can result in a failure to prevent fetal injury. We address the challenging problem of interpreting intrapartum CTG in a novel way by modeling the dynamic relationship between UP (as an input) and FHR (as an output). We use a nonparametric approach to estimate the dynamics in terms of an impulse response function (IRF). We apply singular value decomposition to suppress noise, IRF delay, and memory estimation to identify the temporal extent of the response and surrogate testing to assess model significance. We construct models for a database of CTG recordings labeled by outcome, and compare the models during the last 3 h of labor as well as across outcome classes. The results demonstrate that the UP-FHR dynamics can be successfully modeled as an input-output system. Models for pathological cases had stronger, more delayed, and more predictable responses than those for normal cases. In addition, the models evolved in time, reflecting a clinically plausible evolution of the fetal state due to the stress of labor.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations44
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207