■本研究旨在比较心电图网络(CTGNet)预测的胎儿心率(FHR)基线与临床医生估计的基线。
■从五个数据集中收集了使用不同的电胎儿监护仪(EFM)获得的总共1,267个FHR记录:使用F15EFM获得的84个FHR记录(Edan,深圳,中国)来自广州妇女儿童医疗中心,使用SRF618B5EFM获得331条FHR录音(Sanrui,广州,中国),用F3EFM获得的234个FHR录音(Lian-Med,广州,中国)来自南方医科大学南方医院,使用STANS21和S31记录的552例心电图(CTG)(NeoventaMedical,Mölndal,瑞典)和阿瓦隆FM40和FM50(飞利浦医疗保健,阿姆斯特丹,荷兰)来自布尔诺大学医院,捷克共和国,和使用AvalonFM50胎儿监护仪获得的66个FHR记录(飞利浦,阿姆斯特丹,荷兰)在圣文森特·德保罗医院(里尔,法国)。每个FHR基线由临床医生和CTGNet估计,分别。CTGNet和临床医生之间的协议使用kappa统计进行评估,类内相关系数,和协议的限制。
■差异数<每分钟3次(bpm),3-5bpm,5-10bpm和≥10bpm,是64.88%,15.94%,14.44%和4.74%,分别。Kappa统计量和类内相关系数分别为0.873和0.969。协议限制为-6.81和7.48(平均差:0.36和标准偏差:3.64)。
■在来自具有不同信号丢失率的FHR记录的基线估计中,在CTGNet和临床医生之间发现了极好的一致性。
UNASSIGNED: This study aims to compare the fetal heart rate (FHR) baseline predicted by the cardiotocograph network (CTGNet) with that estimated by clinicians.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 1,267 FHR recordings acquired with different electrical fetal monitors (EFM) were collected from five datasets: 84 FHR recordings acquired with F15 EFM (Edan, Shenzhen,
China) from the Guangzhou Women and Children\'s Medical Center, 331 FHR recordings acquired with SRF618B5 EFM (Sanrui, Guangzhou,
China), 234 FHR recordings acquired with F3 EFM (Lian-Med, Guangzhou,
China) from the NanFang Hospital of Southen Medical University, 552 cardiotocographys (CTG) recorded using STAN S21 and S31 (Neoventa Medical, Mölndal, Sweden) and Avalon FM40 and FM50 (Philips Healthcare, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) from the University Hospital in Brno, Czech Republic, and 66 FHR recordings acquired using Avalon FM50 fetal monitor (Philips Healthcare, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) at St Vincent de Paul Hospital (Lille, France). Each FHR baseline was estimated by clinicians and CTGNet, respectively. And agreement between CTGNet and clinicians was evaluated using the kappa statistics, intra-class correlation coefficient, and the limits of agreement.
UNASSIGNED: The number of differences <3 beats per minute (bpm), 3-5 bpm, 5-10 bpm and ≥10 bpm, is 64.88%, 15.94%, 14.44% and 4.74%, respectively. Kappa statistics and intra-class correlation coefficient are 0.873 and 0.969, respectively. Limits of agreement are -6.81 and 7.48 (mean difference: 0.36 and standard deviation: 3.64).
UNASSIGNED: An excellent agreement was found between CTGNet and clinicians in the baseline estimation from FHR recordings with different signal loss rates.