Computer‐based intrapartum fetal monitoring and beyond: A review of the 2nd Workshop on Signal Processing and Monitoring in Labor (October 2017, Oxford, UK)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The second Signal Processing and Monitoring in Labor workshop gathered researchers who utilize promising new research strategies and initiatives to tackle the challenges of intrapartum fetal monitoring. The workshop included a series of lectures and discussions focusing on: new algorithms and techniques for cardiotocogoraphy (CTG) and electrocardiogram acquisition and analyses; the results of a CTG evaluation challenge comparing state-of-the-art computerized methods and visual interpretation for the detection of arterial cord pH <7.05 at birth; the lack of consensus about the role of intrapartum acidemia in the etiology of fetal brain injury; the differences between methods for CTG analysis "mimicking" expert clinicians and those derived from "data-driven" analyses; a critical review of the results from two randomized controlled trials testing the former in clinical practice; and relevant insights from modern physiology-based studies. We concluded that the automated algorithms performed comparably to each other and to clinical assessment of the CTG. However, the sensitivity and specificity urgently need to be improved (both computerized and visual assessment). Data-driven CTG evaluation requires further work with large multicenter datasets based on well-defined labor outcomes. And before first tests in the clinic, there are important lessons to be learnt from clinical trials that tested automated algorithms mimicking expert CTG interpretation. In addition, transabdominal fetal electrocardiogram monitoring provides reliable CTG traces and variability estimates; and fetal electrocardiogram waveform analysis is subject to promising new research. There is a clear need for close collaboration between computing and clinical experts. We believe that progress will be possible with multidisciplinary collaborative research.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".