Computerized cardiotocography analysis during labor - A state-of-the-art review.
cardiotocography deep learning
cardiotocography machine learning
computerized cardiotocography
fetal heart rate monitoring
fetal hypoxia
perinatal morbidity
Journal
Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica
ISSN: 1600-0412
Titre abrégé: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370343
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2023
02 2023
Historique:
revised:
01
12
2022
received:
07
09
2022
accepted:
02
12
2022
pubmed:
22
12
2022
medline:
3
2
2023
entrez:
21
12
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Cardiotocography is defined as the recording of fetal heart rate and uterine contractions and is widely used during labor as a screening tool to determine fetal wellbeing. The visual interpretation of the cardiotocography signals by the practitioners, following common guidelines, is subject to a high interobserver variability, and the efficiency of cardiotocography monitoring is still debated. Since the 1990s, researchers and practitioners work on designing reliable computer-aided systems to assist practitioners in cardiotocography interpretation during labor. Several systems are integrated in the monitoring devices, mostly based on the guidelines, but they have not clearly demonstrated yet their usefulness. In the last decade, the availability of large clinical databases as well as the emergence of machine learning and deep learning methods in healthcare has led to a surge of studies applying those methods to cardiotocography signals analysis. The state-of-the-art systems perform well to detect fetal hypoxia when evaluated on retrospective cohorts, but several challenges remain to be tackled before they can be used in clinical practice. First, the development and sharing of large, open and anonymized multicentric databases of perinatal and cardiotocography data during labor is required to build more accurate systems. Also, the systems must produce interpretable indicators along with the prediction of the risk of fetal hypoxia in order to be appropriated and trusted by practitioners. Finally, common standards should be built and agreed on to evaluate and compare those systems on retrospective cohorts and to validate their use in clinical practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36541016
doi: 10.1111/aogs.14498
pmc: PMC9889319
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
130-137Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).
Références
J Perinat Med. 2008;36(3):260-4
pubmed: 18576938
Sci Rep. 2021 Jun 28;11(1):13367
pubmed: 34183748
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020 Feb 4;20(1):77
pubmed: 32019499
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Mar;220(3):269.e1-269.e8
pubmed: 30594567
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010 Jul;110(1):1-6
pubmed: 20434156
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2022 Jul;274:40-47
pubmed: 35580530
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014 Jan 13;14:16
pubmed: 24418387
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Dec 21;(12):CD000116
pubmed: 26690497
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2018 Jul;2018:5866-5869
pubmed: 30441670
Front Pediatr. 2021 Dec 03;9:736834
pubmed: 34926338
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019 Dec 30;19(1):286
pubmed: 31888592
Int J Biomed Comput. 1990 May;25(4):261-72
pubmed: 2194979
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017 Jan;30(1):62-67
pubmed: 26940372
Adv Clin Exp Med. 2020 Jan;29(1):33-44
pubmed: 31965765
J Matern Fetal Med. 2000 Sep-Oct;9(5):311-8
pubmed: 11132590
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 03;2:CD006066
pubmed: 28157275
Front Artif Intell. 2021 Oct 26;4:765210
pubmed: 34765970
Front Pediatr. 2021 Aug 02;9:661400
pubmed: 34408993
Lancet. 2017 Apr 29;389(10080):1719-1729
pubmed: 28341515
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Oct;205(4):378.e1-5
pubmed: 21864826
Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Feb;115(2 Pt 2):419-420
pubmed: 20093865
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2016 Jan;30:68-78
pubmed: 26211832
Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2011 Jan;66(1):42-6
pubmed: 21510911
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1998 Aug;62(2):141-7
pubmed: 9749885
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019 Sep;98(9):1207-1217
pubmed: 31081113
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jun;202(6):546.e1-7
pubmed: 20079889
Biomed Eng Online. 2017 Jul 6;16(1):89
pubmed: 28679415
J Perinat Med. 1991;19(1-2):39-45
pubmed: 1870055
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020 Jul;33(13):2284-2290
pubmed: 30449222
Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jan;129(1):83-90
pubmed: 27926647
EBioMedicine. 2021 Apr;66:103275
pubmed: 33745882
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004 Dec 1;117(2):174-8
pubmed: 15541853
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016 Jan;95(1):16-27
pubmed: 26610052
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Aug;227(2):265.e1-265.e8
pubmed: 35489441
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1981 Sep 1;141(1):43-52
pubmed: 7270621
Comput Biol Med. 2019 Nov;114:103468
pubmed: 31577964
Nat Rev Cardiol. 2021 Jul;18(7):465-478
pubmed: 33526938
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015 Oct;131(1):13-24
pubmed: 26433401
J Perinat Med. 1991;19(1-2):47-51
pubmed: 1870056
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016 Oct;205:91-7
pubmed: 27567534
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2022 Sep;276:1-8
pubmed: 35792368
J Eval Clin Pract. 2015 Aug;21(4):694-702
pubmed: 26011725
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2023 Feb;102(2):130-137
pubmed: 36541016
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016 Nov;29(22):3682-5
pubmed: 26762827
Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Nov 30;8:661226
pubmed: 34917624
CMAJ. 2021 Apr 6;193(14):E468-E477
pubmed: 33824144
J Clin Monit Comput. 2021 Aug;35(4):771-777
pubmed: 32451749
BJOG. 2009 Jul;116(8):1081-7; discussion 1087-8
pubmed: 19515149
Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Sep 1;138(3):366-373
pubmed: 34352847
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1982 Apr;89(4):270-5
pubmed: 7073994
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019 Jul;300(1):7-14
pubmed: 31053949
Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2020 May;2(2):100101
pubmed: 33345967
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017 Jul;96(7):883-891
pubmed: 28369712