AUTHOR=Rao Lin , Lu Jia , Wu Hai-Rong , Zhao Shu , Lu Bang-Chun , Li Hong TITLE=Automatic classification of fetal heart rate based on a multi-scale LSTM network JOURNAL=Frontiers in Physiology VOLUME=15 YEAR=2024 URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2024.1398735 DOI=10.3389/fphys.2024.1398735 ISSN=1664-042X ABSTRACT=Introduction

Fetal heart rate monitoring during labor can aid healthcare professionals in identifying alterations in the heart rate pattern. However, discrepancies in guidelines and obstetrician expertise present challenges in interpreting fetal heart rate, including failure to acknowledge findings or misinterpretation. Artificial intelligence has the potential to support obstetricians in diagnosing abnormal fetal heart rates.

Methods

Employ preprocessing techniques to mitigate the effects of missing signals and artifacts on the model, utilize data augmentation methods to address data imbalance. Introduce a multi-scale long short-term memory neural network trained with a variety of time-scale data for automatically classifying fetal heart rate. Carried out experimental on both single and multi-scale models.

Results

The results indicate that multi-scale LSTM models outperform regular LSTM models in various performance metrics. Specifically, in the single models tested, the model with a sampling rate of 10 exhibited the highest classification accuracy. The model achieves an accuracy of 85.73%, a specificity of 85.32%, and a precision of 85.53% on CTU-UHB dataset. Furthermore, the area under the receiver operating curve of 0.918 suggests that our model demonstrates a high level of credibility.

Discussion

Compared to previous research, our methodology exhibits superior performance across various evaluation metrics. By incorporating alternative sampling rates into the model, we observed improvements in all performance indicators, including ACC (85.73% vs. 83.28%), SP (85.32% vs. 82.47%), PR (85.53% vs. 82.84%), recall (86.13% vs. 84.09%), F1-score (85.79% vs. 83.42%), and AUC(0.9180 vs. 0.8667). The limitations of this research include the limited consideration of pregnant women’s clinical characteristics and disregard the potential impact of varying gestational weeks.