全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

Comparison of Different EHG Feature Selection Methods for the Detection of Preterm Labor

DOI: 10.1155/2013/485684

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

Numerous types of linear and nonlinear features have been extracted from the electrohysterogram (EHG) in order to classify labor and pregnancy contractions. As a result, the number of available features is now very large. The goal of this study is to reduce the number of features by selecting only the relevant ones which are useful for solving the classification problem. This paper presents three methods for feature subset selection that can be applied to choose the best subsets for classifying labor and pregnancy contractions: an algorithm using the Jeffrey divergence (JD) distance, a sequential forward selection (SFS) algorithm, and a binary particle swarm optimization (BPSO) algorithm. The two last methods are based on a classifier and were tested with three types of classifiers. These methods have allowed us to identify common features which are relevant for contraction classification. 1. Introduction Preterm birth, that is, birth before the 37th week of pregnancy, remains a major problem in obstetrics. Children born before term present a high risk of mortality as well as health and development problems [1]. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), preterm birth rates range between 5% and 12% of births and perinatal mortality occurs in 3% to 47% of these cases in even the most developed parts of the world [2]. Delivery occurs after the onset of regular and effective uterine contractions, which cause dilation of the cervix and expulsion of the fetus. A contraction of the uterine muscle occurs due to the generation of electrical activity in a given uterine cell that spreads to other, neighboring cells. The evolution of uterine contractions, from weak and ineffective during pregnancy to strong and effective during labor, is therefore related to an increase in cellular excitability to an increase in the synchronization of the entire uterus [3]. A primary aim of pregnancy is to maintain the well-being of both mother and fetus and to keep the latter in utero as long as needed for a healthy birth. During pregnancy, the monitoring of uterine contractility is crucial in order to differentiate normal contractions, which are ineffective, from those effective contractions which might cause early dilation of the cervix and induce preterm birth. Despite increased knowledge and understanding of the phenomena involved in the onset of preterm labor, the methods currently used in obstetrics are not precise enough for an early detection of preterm birth threats. We need a more reliable method for early detection and prevention of preterm birth threats. One of

References

[1]  R. L. Goldenberg, J. F. Culhane, J. D. Iams, and R. Romero, “Epidemiology and causes of preterm birth,” The Lancet, vol. 371, no. 9606, pp. 75–84, 2008.
[2]  “Neonatal and perinatal mortality: country, regional and global estimates, Report WHO,” 2006, http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2006/9241563206_eng.pdf.
[3]  R. E. Garfield and W. L. Maner, “Physiology and electrical activity of uterine contractions,” Seminars in Cell and Developmental Biology, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 289–295, 2007.
[4]  M. Hassan, J. Terrien, C. Muszynski, A. Alexandersson, C. Marque, and B. Karlsson, “Better pregnancy monitoring using nonlinear correlation analysis of external uterine electromyography,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 1160–1166, 2013.
[5]  H. Alvarez and R. Caldeyro, “Contractility of the human uterus recorded by new methods,” Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 1950.
[6]  D. Devedeux, C. Marque, S. Mansour, G. Germain, and J. Duchene, “Uterine electromyography: a critical review,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 169, no. 6, pp. 1636–1653, 1993.
[7]  J. Terrien, T. Steingrimsdottir, C. Marque, and B. Karlsson, “Synchronization between EMG at different uterine locations investigated using time-frequency ridge reconstruction: comparison of pregnancy and labor contractions,” Eurasip Journal on Advances in Signal Processing, vol. 2010, Article ID 242493, 2010.
[8]  W. L. Maner, R. E. Garfield, H. Maul, G. Olson, and G. Saade, “Predicting term and preterm delivery with transabdominal uterine electromyography,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 101, no. 6, pp. 1254–1260, 2003.
[9]  J. Sikora, A. Matonia, R. Czabański, K. Horoba, J. Jezewski, and T. Kupka, “Recognition of premature threatening labour symptoms from bioelectrical uterine activity signals,” Archives of Perinatal Medicine, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 97–103, 2011.
[10]  M. Lucovnik, W. L. Maner, L. R. Chambliss et al., “Noninvasive uterine electromyography for prediction of preterm delivery,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 204, no. 3, pp. 228.e1–228.e10, 2011.
[11]  C. Marque, H. Leman, M. L. Voisine, J. Gondry, and P. Naepels, “Traitement de l’électromyogramme utérin pour la caractérisation des contractions pendant la grossesse,” RBM-News, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 200–211, 1999.
[12]  G. Fele-?or?, G. Kav?ek, ?. Novak-Antoli?, and F. Jager, “A comparison of various linear and non-linear signal processing techniques to separate uterine EMG records of term and pre-term delivery groups,” Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing, vol. 46, no. 9, pp. 911–922, 2008.
[13]  M. O. Diab, C. Marque, and M. A. Khalil, “Classification for uterine EMG signals: comparison between AR model and statistical classification method,” International Journal of Computational Cognition, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 8–14, 2007.
[14]  T. Ivancevic, L. Jain, J. Pattison, A. Hariz, and others, “Preterm birth analysis using nonlinear methods,” Recent Patents on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 160–170, 2008.
[15]  A. Diab, M. Hassan, C. Marque, and B. Karlsson, “Quantitative performance analysis of four methods of evaluating signal nonlinearity: application to uterine EMG signals,” in Proceedings of the 34th Annual International IEEE EMBS Conference, San Diego, Calif, USA, September 2012.
[16]  M. Hu and H. Liang, “Variance entropy: a method for characterizing perceptual awareness of visual stimulus,” Applied Computational Intelligence and Soft Computing, vol. 2012, Article ID 525396, 6 pages, 2012.
[17]  D. Alamedine, M. Khalil, and C. Marque, “Parameters extraction and monitoring in uterine EMG signals,” in Detection of Preterm Deliveries, Recherche en Imagerie et Technologies pour la Santé (RITS), Bordeaux, France, 2013.
[18]  L. Ladha and T. Deepa, “Feature selection methods and algorithms,” International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 1787–1797, 2011.
[19]  J. Kennedy and R. C. Eberhart, “Discrete binary version of the particle swarm algorithm,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 4104–4108, October 1997.
[20]  B. Karlson, J. Terrien, V. Gudmundsson, T. Steingrimsdottir, and C. Marque, “Abdominal EHG on a 4 by 4 grid: mapping and presenting the propagation of uterine contractions,” in Proceedings of the 11th Mediterranean Conference on Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing, pp. 139–143, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2007.
[21]  M. Khalil, Une approche de la détection et de la classification dans les signaux non stationnaires. Application a l’EMG utérin [Ph.D. thesis], Thèse de l’Université de Technologie de Troyes, 1999 French.
[22]  Y. Ma, X. Gu, and Y. Wang, “Histogram similarity measure using variable bin size distance,” Computer Vision and Image Understanding, vol. 114, no. 8, pp. 981–989, 2010.
[23]  D. W. Aha and R. L. Bankert, “A comparative evaluation of sequential feature selection algorithms,” in Learning from Data, pp. 199–206, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 1996.
[24]  S. Dudoit, J. Fridlyand, and T. P. Speed, “Comparison of discrimination methods for the classification of tumors using gene expression data,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 97, no. 457, pp. 77–87, 2002.
[25]  N. Georgiou-Karistianis, M. A. Gray, D. J. F. Domínguez et al., “Automated differentiation of pre-diagnosis Huntington’s disease from healthy control individuals based on quadratic discriminant analysis of the basal ganglia: the IMAGE-HD study,” Neurobiology of Disease, vol. 51, pp. 82–92, 2013.
[26]  R. Eberhart and J. Kennedy, “New optimizer using particle swarm theory,” in Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Micro Machine and Human Science (MHS ’95), pp. 39–43, October 1995.
[27]  V. Ranaee, A. Ebrahimzadeh, and R. Ghaderi, “Application of the PSOSVM model for recognition of control chart patterns,” ISA Transactions, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 577–586, 2010.

Full-Text

comments powered by Disqus

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133