A Comparison of Various Linear and Non-linear Signal Processing Techniques to Separate Uterine EMG Records of Term and Pre-term Delivery Groups

Overview

Journal Med Biol Eng Comput

Publisher Springer

Specialties Biomedical Engineering
Medical Informatics

Date 2008 Apr 26

PMID 18437439

Citations 46

Authors

G Fele-Zorz

G Kavsek

Z Novak-Antolic

F Jager

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Various linear and non-linear signal-processing techniques were applied to three-channel uterine EMG records to separate term and pre-term deliveries. The linear techniques were root mean square value, peak and median frequency of the signal power spectrum and autocorrelation zero crossing; while the selected non-linear techniques were estimation of the maximal Lyapunov exponent, correlation dimension and calculating sample entropy. In total, 300 records were grouped into four groups according to the time of recording (before or after the 26th week of gestation) and according to the total length of gestation (term delivery records--pregnancy duration >or=37 weeks and pre-term delivery records--pregnancy duration <37 weeks). The following preprocessing band-pass Butterworth filters were tested: 0.08-4, 0.3-4, and 0.3-3 Hz. With the 0.3-3 Hz filter, the median frequency indicated a statistical difference between those term and pre-term delivery records recorded before the 26th week (p = 0.03), and between all term and all pre-term delivery records (p = 0.012). With the same filter, the sample entropy indicated statistical differences between those term and pre-term delivery records recorded before the 26th week (p = 0.035), and between all term and all pre-term delivery records (p = 0.011). Both techniques also showed noticeable differences between term delivery records recorded before and after the 26th week (p <or= 0.001).

Citing Articles

Preterm birth prediction from electrohysterogram using multivariate empirical mode decomposition.

Cui J, Zhang X, Li X, Luo X, Chen X, Yin Z Med Biol Eng Comput. 2025; .

PMID: 39893327 DOI: 10.1007/s11517-025-03293-2.

Characteristics of phase synchronization in electrohysterography and tocodynamometry for preterm birth prediction.

Kang J, Jeon Y, Lee I, Kim J Heliyon. 2024; 10(22):e40433.

PMID: 39634434 PMC: 11615491. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e40433.

Peak amplitude of the normalized power spectrum of the electromyogram of the uterus in the low frequency band is an effective predictor of premature birth.

Pirnar Z, Jager F, Gersak K PLoS One. 2024; 19(9):e0308797.

PMID: 39264880 PMC: 11392270. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308797.

Cyclostationary analysis of uterine EMG measurements for the prediction of preterm birth.

Vinothini S, Punitha N, Karthick P, Ramakrishnan S Biomed Eng Lett. 2024; 14(4):727-736.

PMID: 38946820 PMC: 11208349. DOI: 10.1007/s13534-024-00367-2.

Empirical mode decomposition of local field potential data from optogenetic experiments.

Oprisan S, Clementsmith X, Tompa T, Lavin A Front Comput Neurosci. 2023; 17:1223879.

PMID: 37476356 PMC: 10354259. DOI: 10.3389/fncom.2023.1223879.

References

Iams J, Newman R, Thom E, Goldenberg R, Mueller-Heubach E, Moawad A . Frequency of uterine contractions and the risk of spontaneous preterm delivery. N Engl J Med. 2002; 346(4):250-5. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa002868. View

Gondry J, Marque C, Duchene J, Cabrol D . Electrohysterography during pregnancy: preliminary report. Biomed Instrum Technol. 1993; 27(4):318-24. View

Maner W, Garfield R . Identification of human term and preterm labor using artificial neural networks on uterine electromyography data. Ann Biomed Eng. 2007; 35(3):465-73. DOI: 10.1007/s10439-006-9248-8. View

Maul H, Maner W, Olson G, Saade G, Garfield R . Non-invasive transabdominal uterine electromyography correlates with the strength of intrauterine pressure and is predictive of labor and delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2004; 15(5):297-301. DOI: 10.1080/14767050410001695301. View

Maner W, Mackay L, Saade G, Garfield R . Characterization of abdominally acquired uterine electrical signals in humans, using a non-linear analytic method. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2006; 44(1-2):117-23. DOI: 10.1007/s11517-005-0011-3. View

Garfield R, Maner W, MacKay L, Schlembach D, Saade G . Comparing uterine electromyography activity of antepartum patients versus term labor patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 193(1):23-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.01.050. View

Iams J . Prediction and early detection of preterm labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 101(2):402-12. DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(02)02505-x. View

Devedeux D, Marque C, Mansour S, Germain G, Duchene J . Uterine electromyography: a critical review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993; 169(6):1636-53. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9378(93)90456-s. View

Jezewski J, Horoba K, Matonia A, Wrobel J . Quantitative analysis of contraction patterns in electrical activity signal of pregnant uterus as an alternative to mechanical approach. Physiol Meas. 2005; 26(5):753-67. DOI: 10.1088/0967-3334/26/5/014. View

10.

Marque C, Duchene J, LeClercq S, Panczer G, Chaumont J . Uterine EHG processing for obstetrical monitoring. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1986; 33(12):1182-7. DOI: 10.1109/TBME.1986.325698. View

11.

Leman H, Marque C, Gondry J . Use of the electrohysterogram signal for characterization of contractions during pregnancy. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1999; 46(10):1222-9. DOI: 10.1109/10.790499. View

12.

Nagarajan R, Eswaran H, Wilson J, Murphy P, Lowery C, Preissl H . Analysis of uterine contractions: a dynamical approach. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2003; 14(1):8-21. DOI: 10.1080/jmf.14.1.8.21. View

13.

Verdenik I, Pajntar M, Leskosek B . Uterine electrical activity as predictor of preterm birth in women with preterm contractions. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001; 95(2):149-53. DOI: 10.1016/s0301-2115(00)00418-8. View

14.

Buhimschi C, Boyle M, Garfield R . Electrical activity of the human uterus during pregnancy as recorded from the abdominal surface. Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 90(1):102-11. DOI: 10.1016/S0029-7844(97)83837-9. View

15.

Garfield R, Maner W, Maul H, Saade G . Use of uterine EMG and cervical LIF in monitoring pregnant patients. BJOG. 2005; 112 Suppl 1:103-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00596.x. View

16.

Maner W, Garfield R, Maul H, Olson G, Saade G . Predicting term and preterm delivery with transabdominal uterine electromyography. Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 101(6):1254-60. DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(03)00341-7. View

17.

Lake D, Richman J, Griffin M, Moorman J . Sample entropy analysis of neonatal heart rate variability. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2002; 283(3):R789-97. DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.00069.2002. View

18.

Carre P, Leman H, Fernandez C, Marque C . Denoising of the uterine EHG by an undecimated wavelet transform. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1998; 45(9):1104-13. DOI: 10.1109/10.709554. View

19.

To M, Alfirevic Z, Heath V, Cicero S, Cacho A, Williamson P . Cervical cerclage for prevention of preterm delivery in women with short cervix: randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004; 363(9424):1849-53. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16351-4. View