Template-based Quality Assessment of the Doppler Ultrasound Signal for Fetal Monitoring

One dimensional Doppler Ultrasound (DUS) is a low cost method for fetal auscultation. However, accuracy of any metrics derived from the DUS signals depends on their quality, which relies heavily on operator skills. In low resource settings, where skill levels are sparse, it is important for the device to provide real time signal quality feedback to allow the re-recording of data. Retrospectively, signal quality assessment can help remove low quality recordings when processing large amounts of data. To this end, we proposed a novel template-based method, to assess DUS signal quality. Data used in this study were collected from 17 pregnant women using a low-cost transducer connected to a smart phone. Recordings were split into 1990 segments of 3.75 s duration, and hand labeled for quality by three independent annotators. The proposed template-based method uses Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD) to allow detection of the fetal heart beats and segmentation into short, time-aligned temporal windows. Templates were derived for each 15 s window of the recordings. The DUS signal quality index (SQI) was calculated by correlating the segments in each window with the corresponding running template using four different pre-processing steps: (i) no additional preprocessing, (ii) linear resampling of each beat, (iii) dynamic time warping (DTW) of each beat and (iv) weighted DTW of each beat. The template-based SQIs were combined with additional features based on sample entropy and power spectral density. To assess the performance of the method, the dataset was split into training and test subsets. The training set was used to obtain the best combination of features for predicting the DUS quality using cross validation, and the test set was used to estimate the classification accuracy using bootstrap resampling. A median out of sample classification accuracy on the test set of 85.8% was found using three features; template-based SQI, sample entropy and the relative power in the 160 to 660 Hz range. The results suggest that the new automated method can reliably assess the DUS quality, thereby helping users to consistently record DUS signals with acceptable quality for fetal monitoring.

[1]  J. Huhta,et al.  Accuracy of Prenatal Diagnosis of Congenital Heart Defects , 2001, Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy.

[2]  Faezeh Marzbanrad.  Modeling fetal cardiac valve intervals and fetal-maternal interactions , 2015 .

[3]  L. Allan,et al.  Potential impact of population screening for prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart disease. , 1992, Archives of disease in childhood.

[4]  Gari D Clifford,et al.  An mHealth monitoring system for traditional birth attendant-led antenatal risk assessment in rural Guatemala , 2016, Journal of medical engineering & technology.

[5]  Olufemi A. Omitaomu,et al.  Weighted dynamic time warping for time series classification , 2011, Pattern Recognit..

[6]  J. Larsen.  Maternal and perinatal health. , 2011, South African medical journal = Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir geneeskunde.

[7]  Witold Pedrycz,et al.  Editorial to the special issue , 2009, TAAS.

[8]  Marimuthu Palaniswami,et al.  Classification of Doppler Ultrasound signal quality for the application of fetal valve motion identification , 2015, 2015 Computing in Cardiology Conference (CinC).

[9]  T. Wheeler,et al.  Detection of fetal movement using Doppler ultrasound. , 1987, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[10]  G. Visser,et al.  Fetal heart rate in relation to its variation in normal and growth retarded fetuses. , 2000, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[11]  Marimuthu Palaniswami,et al.  Automated measurement of fetal Isovolumic Contraction Time from Doppler Ultrasound Signals without using Fetal Electrocardiography , 2014, Computing in Cardiology 2014.

[12]  Richard D. Deveaux,et al.  Applied Smoothing Techniques for Data Analysis , 1999, Technometrics.

[13]  Y Murata,et al.  Systolic Time Intervals of the Fetal Cardiac Cycle , 1974, Postgraduate medicine.

[14]  J. A. Crowe,et al.  The information content of Doppler ultrasound signals from the fetal heart , 2001, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[15]  Lisa Stroux,et al.  A perinatal monitoring system for low-resource settings , 2015 .

[16]  J. Bernardes,et al.  Twenty‐five years after the FIGO guidelines for the use of fetal monitoring: Time for a simplified approach? , 2010, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[17]  David Osrin,et al.  Stillbirths: rates, risk factors, and acceleration towards 2030 , 2016, The Lancet.

[18]  Marimuthu Palaniswami,et al.  Methodological Comparisons of Heart Rate Variability Analysis in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Polymorphism , 2016, IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics.

[19]  Masoud Asgharian,et al.  Birth prevalence of congenital heart disease. , 2009, Epidemiology.

[20]  Marimuthu Palaniswami,et al.  Estimating fetal gestational age using cardiac valve intervals , 2016, 2016 Computing in Cardiology Conference (CinC).

[21]  Twenty-five years after , 2013 .

[22]  N. Huang,et al.  The empirical mode decomposition and the Hilbert spectrum for nonlinear and non-stationary time series analysis , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[23]  Nitesh V. Chawla,et al.  Editorial: special issue on learning from imbalanced data sets , 2004, SKDD.

[24]  Maria G. Signorini,et al.  Complexity analysis of the fetal heart rate variability: early identification of severe intrauterine growth-restricted fetuses , 2009, Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing.

[25]  Roberto Sassi,et al.  of the 23 rd Annual EMBS International Conference , October 25-28 , Istanbul , Turkey AUTOMATIC DIAGNOSIS OF FETAL HEART RATE : COMPARISON OF . DIFFERENT METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES , 2004 .

[26]  M. Moulden,et al.  A computer system for the numerical analysis of nonstress tests. , 2002, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[27]  G. Dawes,et al.  Numerical analysis of the human fetal heart rate: the quality of ultrasound records. , 1981, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[28]  J. Richman,et al.  Physiological time-series analysis using approximate entropy and sample entropy. , 2000, American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology.

[29]  K Michael Hambidge,et al.  First look: a cluster-randomized trial of ultrasound to improve pregnancy outcomes in low income country settings , 2014, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.

[30]  Q Li,et al.  Dynamic time warping and machine learning for signal quality assessment of pulsatile signals , 2012, Physiological measurement.

[31]  Asad Malik,et al.  Maternal and fetal risk factors for stillbirth: population based study , 2013, BMJ.

[32]  A. LAZO GUERRA.  Maternal mortality , 1951 .

[33]  J. Roos‐Hesselink,et al.  Birth prevalence of congenital heart disease worldwide: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2011, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[34]  Shigeo Abe.  Support Vector Machines for Pattern Classification , 2010, Advances in Pattern Recognition.