Why the study?
FECG morphology is important for early diagnosis of fetal health, but clean extraction is challenging because signals are contaminated by maternal ECG and noise.
Does a Slow-Fast LSTM network improve the extraction of fetal ECG morphology from noninvasive abdominal ECG records?
Does a Slow-Fast LSTM network improve the extraction of fetal ECG morphology from noninvasive abdominal ECG records?
A novel Slow-Fast LSTM network effectively extracts clean fetal ECG morphology from noninvasive abdominal recordings, improving signal-to-noise ratio and reducing computational load.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May enhance noninvasive fetal monitoring research; leaves open prospective clinical validation before practice adoption.
The morphology of Fetal Electrocardiogram (FECG) plays an important role in the early diagnosis of fetal health condition. However, it is intractable to extract the clean morphology of FECG signals, which are usually contaminated by Maternal ECG (MECG) and various noises. To extract the clean morphology of FECG signals from noninvasive abdominal ECG records, a high-performance and high-efficient two-stage Slow-Fast Long Short Term Memory (SFLSTM) based architecture is proposed. The MECG elimination and the FECG enhancement are realized by the elaborately designed slow LSTM and fast LSTM to filter out the MECG and the residual noise components, respectively. Qualitative and quantitative experiments are conducted on the records from two public databases. The experimental results show that our proposed MECG elimination and FECG enhancement schemes improve the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) by 3.09 dB and 1.81 dB, respectively. The proposed fast LSTM reduces the amount of computation by approximately 50%, without any degradation in performance. Our proposed method may leverage the noninvasive FECG monitoring for the early detection of fetal heart diseases.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhou et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: