DeepCTG® 1.0: an interpretable model to detect fetal hypoxia from cardiotocography data during labor and delivery.
Fetal Heart Rate (FHR)
cardiotocography
computerized cardiotocography
fetal hypoxia
fetal monitoring
fetal morbidity
fetal mortality
labor
Journal
Frontiers in pediatrics
ISSN: 2296-2360
Titre abrégé: Front Pediatr
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101615492
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
21
03
2023
accepted:
30
05
2023
medline:
3
7
2023
pubmed:
3
7
2023
entrez:
3
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cardiotocography, which consists in monitoring the fetal heart rate as well as uterine activity, is widely used in clinical practice to assess fetal wellbeing during labor and delivery in order to detect fetal hypoxia and intervene before permanent damage to the fetus. We present DeepCTG® 1.0, a model able to predict fetal acidosis from the cardiotocography signals. DeepCTG® 1.0 is based on a logistic regression model fed with four features extracted from the last available 30 min segment of cardiotocography signals: the minimum and maximum values of the fetal heart rate baseline, and the area covered by accelerations and decelerations. Those four features have been selected among a larger set of 25 features. The model has been trained and evaluated on three datasets: the open CTU-UHB dataset, the SPaM dataset and a dataset built in hospital Beaujon (Clichy, France). Its performance has been compared with other published models and with nine obstetricians who have annotated the CTU-UHB cases. We have also evaluated the impact of two key factors on the performance of the model: the inclusion of cesareans in the datasets and the length of the cardiotocography segment used to compute the features fed to the model. The AUC of the model is 0.74 on the CTU-UHB and Beaujon datasets, and between 0.77 and 0.87 on the SPaM dataset. It achieves a much lower false positive rate (12% vs. 25%) than the most frequent annotation among the nine obstetricians for the same sensitivity (45%). The performance of the model is slightly lower on the cesarean cases only (AUC = 0.74 vs. 0.76) and feeding the model with shorter CTG segments leads to a significant decrease in its performance (AUC = 0.68 with 10 min segments). Although being relatively simple, DeepCTG® 1.0 reaches a good performance: it compares very favorably to clinical practice and performs slightly better than other published models based on similar approaches. It has the important characteristic of being interpretable, as the four features it is based on are known and understood by practitioners. The model could be improved further by integrating maternofetal clinical factors, using more advanced machine learning or deep learning approaches and having a more robust evaluation of the model based on a larger dataset with more pathological cases and covering more maternity centers.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37397139
doi: 10.3389/fped.2023.1190441
pmc: PMC10311205
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1190441Informations de copyright
© 2023 Ben M'Barek, Jauvion, Vitrou, Holmström, Koskas and Ceccaldi.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
GJ is the funder of Genos Care, a company building medical software. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2011 Jan;66(1):42-6
pubmed: 21510911
J Perinat Med. 2008;36(3):260-4
pubmed: 18576938
Sci Rep. 2021 Jun 28;11(1):13367
pubmed: 34183748
Comput Biol Med. 2019 Nov;114:103468
pubmed: 31577964
Bioengineering (Basel). 2023 Jun 19;10(6):
pubmed: 37370663
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2022 Sep;276:1-8
pubmed: 35792368
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016 Nov;29(22):3682-5
pubmed: 26762827
J Clin Monit Comput. 2021 Aug;35(4):771-777
pubmed: 32451749
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
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2018 Jul;2018:5866-5869
pubmed: 30441670
Comput Biol Med. 2019 Dec;115:103525
pubmed: 31698240
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019 Dec 30;19(1):286
pubmed: 31888592
BJOG. 2009 Jul;116(8):1081-7; discussion 1087-8
pubmed: 19515149
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017 Jul;96(7):883-891
pubmed: 28369712
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017 Jan;30(1):62-67
pubmed: 26940372
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 03;2:CD006066
pubmed: 28157275
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
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019 Sep;98(9):1207-1217
pubmed: 31081113
J Perinat Med. 1991;19(1-2):39-45
pubmed: 1870055
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015 Oct;131(1):13-24
pubmed: 26433401
J Perinat Med. 1991;19(1-2):47-51
pubmed: 1870056
J Eval Clin Pract. 2015 Aug;21(4):694-702
pubmed: 26011725
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2023 Feb;102(2):130-137
pubmed: 36541016
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2023 Feb;102(2):174-180
pubmed: 36504253
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019 Sep;240:62-67
pubmed: 31229725