MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Protocol for a systematic review of wearable devices for antenatal fetal monitoring

2025· review· en· W4415749121 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Niccole Ranaei‐Zamani, Olayinka Kowobari, Dimitrios Siassakos, Sara Hillman, Anna L. David, Subhabrata Mitra

Bibliographic record

VenueWellcome Open Research · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsProtocol (science)Wearable computerWearable technologyTelemedicineFetal monitoringMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Fetal monitoring is a crucial component of antenatal care, facilitating early detection of fetal compromise and improving pregnancy outcomes. Traditional monitoring methods such as cardiotocography (CTG) and ultrasound are effective but primarily limited to clinical settings, requiring specialized expertise and resources. The rise of wearable medical devices and artificial intelligence (AI) applications presents an opportunity to enhance fetal monitoring by enabling continuous, real-time data collection outside clinical environments. These technologies have the potential to improve fetal health and obstetric outcomes, particularly in resource-limited settings. This systematic review aims to evaluate the use of wearable devices for antenatal fetal monitoring and their impact on fetal and obstetric outcomes. Methods and Analysis: This systematic review will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) framework. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science will be conducted to identify primary research studies investigating wearable devices designed for fetal monitoring during pregnancy. Studies will be included if they assess the effectiveness, accuracy, and clinical impact of wearable fetal monitoring devices. Primary outcomes will include markers of fetal well-being as well as neonatal and obstetric outcomes. Secondary outcomes will focus on patient experience and acceptability. Data extraction and quality assessment will be conducted independently by two reviewers using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Quality Assessment Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A narrative synthesis will be performed to summarise the findings. Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval is not required since the study involves analysing published literature. The findings will be shared through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. This review will enhance the evidence base regarding the clinical utility of wearable fetal monitoring technologies and inform future research and device development. PROSPERO Registration: CRD4202348755 (current version 4.1).

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.295
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.248 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWellcome Open ResearchSame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207