Estimation and Discriminability of Doppler Ultrasound Fetal Heart Rate Variability Measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuous electronic fetal monitoring and the access to databases of fetal heart rate (FHR) data have sparked the application of machine learning classifiers to identify fetal pathologies. However, most fetal heart rate data are acquired using Doppler ultrasound (DUS). DUS signals use autocorrelation (AC) to estimate the average heartbeat period within a window. In consequence, DUS FHR signals loses high frequency information to an extent that depends on the length of the AC window. We examined the effect of this on the estimation bias and discriminability of frequency domain features: low frequency power (LF: 0.03-0.15 Hz), movement frequency power (MF: 0.15-0.5 Hz), high frequency power (HF: 0.5-1 Hz), the LF/(MF + HF) ratio, and the nonlinear approximate entropy (ApEn) as a function of AC window length and signal to noise ratio. We found that the average discriminability loss across all evaluated AC window lengths and SNRs was 10.99% for LF 14.23% for MF, 13.33% for the HF, 10.39% for the LF/(MF + HF) ratio, and 24.17% for ApEn. This indicates that the frequency domain features are more robust to the AC method and additive noise than the ApEn. This is likely because additive noise increases the irregularity of the signals, which results in an overestimation of ApEn. In conclusion, our study found that the LF features are the most robust to the effects of the AC method and noise. Future studies should investigate the effect of other variables such as signal drop, gestational age, and the length of the analysis window on the estimation of fHRV features and their discriminability.
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 | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".