[EN] Pharmacological agents are often used to induce labor. Failed inductions are associated with unnecessarily long waits and greater maternal-fetal risks, as well as higher costs. No reliable models are currently able to predict the induction outcome from common obstetric data (area under the ROC curve (AUC) between 0.6 and 0.7). The aim of this study was to design an early success-predictor system by extracting temporal, spectral, and complexity parameters from the uterine electromyogram (electrohysterogram (EHG)). Different types of feature sets were used to design and train artificial neural networks: Set_1: obstetrical features, Set_2: EHG features, and Set_3: EHG+obstetrical features. Predictor systems were built to classify three scenarios: (1) induced women who reached active phase of labor (APL) vs. women who did not achieve APL (non-APL), (2) APL and vaginal delivery vs. APL and cesarean section delivery, and (3) vaginal vs. cesarean delivery. For Scenario 3, we also proposed 2-step predictor systems consisting of the cascading predictor systems from Scenarios 1 and 2. EHG features outperformed traditional obstetrical features in all the scenarios. Little improvement was obtained by combining them (Set_3). The results show that the EHG can potentially be used to predict successful labor induction and outperforms the traditional obstetric features. Clinical use of this prediction system would help to improve maternal-fetal well-being and optimize hospital resources. This work received financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, the European Regional Development Fund (DPI2015-68397-R and RTI2018-094449-A-I00), Universitat Politècnica de València VLC/Campus (UPV-FE-2018-B02), Generalitat Valenciana (GV/2018/104), and Bial S.A. Benalcazar-Parra, C.; Ye Lin, Y.; Garcia-Casado, J.; Monfort-Ortiz, R.; Alberola Rubio, J.; Perales Marin, AJ.; Prats-Boluda, G. (2019). Prediction of Labor Induction Success from the Uterine Electrohysterogram. Journal of Sensors. 2019:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6916251 Filho, O. B. M., Albuquerque, R. M., & Cecatti, J. G. (2010). A randomized controlled trial comparing vaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter plus oxytocin for labor induction. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 89(8), 1045-1052. doi:10.3109/00016349.2010.499447 Seyb, S. (1999). Risk of cesarean delivery with elective induction of labor at term in nulliparous women. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 94(4), 600-607. doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00377-4 Hou, L., Zhu, Y., Ma, X., Li, J., & Zhang, W. (2012). Clinical parameters for prediction of successful labor induction after application of intravaginal dinoprostone in nulliparous Chinese women. Medical Science Monitor, 18(8), CR518-CR522. doi:10.12659/msm.883273 Pitarello, P. da R. P., Tadashi Yoshizaki, C., Ruano, R., & Zugaib, M. (2012). Prediction of successful labor induction using transvaginal sonographic cervical measurements. Journal of Clinical Ultrasound, 41(2), 76-83. doi:10.1002/jcu.21929 Prado, C. A. de C., Araujo Júnior, E., Duarte, G., Quintana, S. M., Tonni, G., Cavalli, R. de C., & Marcolin, A. C. (2016). Predicting success of labor induction in singleton term pregnancies by combining maternal and ultrasound variables. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, 1-35. doi:10.3109/14767058.2015.1135124 Sievert, R. A., Kuper, S. G., Jauk, V. C., Parrish, M., Biggio, J. R., & Harper, L. M. (2017). Predictors of vaginal delivery in medically indicated early preterm induction of labor. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 217(3), 375.e1-375.e7. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2017.05.025 Garfield, R. E., Maner, W. L., Maul, H., & Saade, G. R. (2005). Use of uterine EMG and cervical LIF in monitoring pregnant patients. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 112, 103-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00596.x Fergus, P., Cheung, P., Hussain, A., Al-Jumeily, D., Dobbins, C., & Iram, S. (2013). Prediction of Preterm Deliveries from EHG Signals Using Machine Learning. PLoS ONE, 8(10), e77154. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077154 Aviram, A., Melamed, N., Hadar, E., Raban, O., Hiersch, L., & Yogev, Y. (2013). Effect of Prostaglandin E2 on Myometrial Electrical Activity in Women Undergoing Induction of Labor. American Journal of Perinatology, 31(05), 413-418. doi:10.1055/s-0033-1352486 Benalcazar-Parra, C., Ye-Lin, Y., Garcia-Casado, J., Monfort-Orti, R., Alberola-Rubio, J., Perales, A., & Prats-Boluda, G. (2018). Electrohysterographic characterization of the uterine myoelectrical response to labor induction drugs. Medical Engineering & Physics, 56, 27-35. doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2018.04.002 Benalcazar-Parra, C., Monfort-Orti, R., Ye-Lin, Y., Prats-Boluda, G., Alberola-Rubio, J., Perales, A., & Garcia-Casado, J. (2017). Comparison of labour induction with misoprostol and dinoprostone and characterization of uterine response based on electrohysterogram. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, 32(10), 1586-1594. doi:10.1080/14767058.2017.1410791 Maner, W. L., & Garfield, R. E. (2007). Identification of Human Term and Preterm Labor using Artificial Neural Networks on Uterine Electromyography Data. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 35(3), 465-473. doi:10.1007/s10439-006-9248-8 Diab, M. O., Marque, C., & Khalil, M. (2009). An unsupervised classification method of uterine electromyography signals: Classification for detection of preterm deliveries. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, 35(1), 9-19. doi:10.1111/j.1447-0756.2008.00981.x Shi, S.-Q., Maner, W. L., Mackay, L. B., & Garfield, R. E. (2008). Identification of term and preterm labor in rats using artificial neural networks on uterine electromyography signals. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 198(2), 235.e1-235.e4. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2007.08.039 Østborg, T. B., Romundstad, P. R., & Eggebø, T. M. (2016). Duration of the active phase of labor in spontaneous and induced labors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 96(1), 120-127. doi:10.1111/aogs.13039 Baños, N., Migliorelli, F., Posadas, E., Ferreri, J., & Palacio, M. (2015). Definition of Failed Induction of Labor and Its Predictive Factors: Two Unsolved Issues of an Everyday Clinical Situation. Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy, 38(3), 161-169. doi:10.1159/000433429 Bueno, B., San-Frutos, L., Salazar, F., Pérez-Medina, T., Engels, V., Archilla, B., … Bajo, J. (2005). Variables that predict the success of labor induction. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 84(11), 1093-1097. doi:10.1111/j.0001-6349.2005.00881.x Ware, V., & Raynor, B. D. (2000). Transvaginal ultrasonographic cervical measurement as a predictor of successful labor induction. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 182(5), 1030-1032. doi:10.1067/mob.2000.105399 Rooijakkers, M. J., Song, S., Rabotti, C., Oei, S. G., Bergmans, J. W. M., Cantatore, E., & Mischi, M. (2014). Influence of Electrode Placement on Signal Quality for Ambulatory Pregnancy Monitoring. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, 2014, 1-12. doi:10.1155/2014/960980 Garfield, R. E., & Maner, W. L. (2007). Physiology and electrical activity of uterine contractions. Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology, 18(3), 289-295. doi:10.1016/j.semcdb.2007.05.004 Leman, H., Marque, C., & Gondry, J. (1999). Use of the electrohysterogram signal for characterization of contractions during pregnancy. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 46(10), 1222-1229. doi:10.1109/10.790499 BUHIMSCHI, C., BOYLE, M., & GARFIELD, R. (1997). Electrical activity of the human uterus during pregnancy as recorded from the abdominal surface. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 90(1), 102-111. doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(97)83837-9 Schlembach, D., Maner, W. L., Garfield, R. E., & Maul, H. (2009). Monitoring the progress of pregnancy and labor using electromyography. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 144, S33-S39. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.02.016 Alamedine, D., Diab, A., Muszynski, C., Karlsson, B., Khalil, M., & Marque, C. (2014). Selection algorithm for parameters to characterize uterine EHG signals for the detection of preterm labor. Signal, Image and Video Processing, 8(6), 1169-1178. doi:10.1007/s11760-014-0655-2 Fele-Žorž, G., Kavšek, G., Novak-Antolič, Ž., & Jager, F. (2008). A comparison of various linear and non-linear signal processing techniques to separate uterine EMG records of term and pre-term delivery groups. Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, 46(9), 911-922. doi:10.1007/s11517-008-0350-y Terrien, J., Marque, C., Gondry, J., Steingrimsdottir, T., & Karlsson, B. (2010). Uterine electromyogram database and processing function interface: An open standard analysis platform for electrohysterogram signals. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 40(2), 223-230. doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2009.11.019 Hassan, M., Terrien, J., Marque, C., & Karlsson, B. (2011). Comparison between approximate entropy, correntropy and time reversibility: Application to uterine electromyogram signals. Medical Engineering & Physics, 33(8), 980-986. doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2011.03.010 Lemancewicz, A., Borowska, M., Kuć, P., Jasińska, E., Laudański, P., Laudański, T., & Oczeretko, E. (2016). Early diagnosis of threatened premature labor by electrohysterographic recordings – The use of digital signal processing. Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, 36(1), 302-307. doi:10.1016/j.bbe.2015.11.005 Weiting Chen, Zhizhong Wang, Hongbo Xie, & Wangxin Yu. (2007). Characterization of Surface EMG Signal Based on Fuzzy Entropy. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 15(2), 266-272. doi:10.1109/tnsre.2007.897025 Zhang, X.-S., Roy, R. J., & Jensen, E. W. (2001). EEG complexity as a measure of depth of anesthesia for patients. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 48(12), 1424-1433. doi:10.1109/10.966601 Blanco, S., Garay, A., & Coulombie, D. (2013). Comparison of Frequency Bands Using Spectral Entropy for Epileptic Seizure Prediction. ISRN Neurology, 2013, 1-5. doi:10.1155/2013/287327 Brennan, M., Palaniswami, M., & Kamen, P. (2001). Do existing measures of Poincare plot geometry reflect nonlinear features of heart rate variability? IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 48(11), 1342-1347. doi:10.1109/10.959330 Chawla, N. V., Bowyer, K. W., Hall, L. O., & Kegelmeyer, W. P. (2002). SMOTE: Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 16, 321-357. doi:10.1613/jair.953 Makond, B., Wang, K.-J., & Wang, K.-M. (2015). Probabilistic modeling of short survivability in patients with brain metastasis from lung cancer. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 119(3), 142-162. doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2015.02.005 Gori, M., & Tesi, A. (1992). On the problem of local minima in backpropagation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 14(1), 76-86. doi:10.1109/34.107014 Zong, W., Huang, G.-B., & Chen, Y. (2013). Weighted extreme learning machine for imbalance learning. Neurocomputing, 101, 229-242. doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2012.08.010 Acharya, U. R., Sudarshan, V. K., Rong, S. Q., Tan, Z., Lim, C. M., Koh, J. E., … Bhandary, S. V. (2017). Automated detection of premature delivery using empirical mode and wavelet packet decomposition techniques with uterine electromyogram signals. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 85, 33-42. doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2017.04.013 Taft, L. M., Evans, R. S., Shyu, C. R., Egger, M. J., Chawla, N., Mitchell, J. A., … Varner, M. (2009). Countering imbalanced datasets to improve adverse drug event predictive models in labor and delivery. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 42(2), 356-364. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.09.001 Smrdel, A., & Jager, F. (2015). Separating sets of term and pre-term uterine EMG records. Physiological Measurement, 36(2), 341-355. doi:10.1088/0967-3334/36/2/341 Blagus, R., & Lusa, L. (2015). Joint use of over- and under-sampling techniques and cross-validation for the development and assessment of prediction models. BMC Bioinformatics, 16(1). doi:10.1186/s12859-015-0784-9 Loughrey, J., & Cunningham, P. (s. f.). Overfitting in Wrapper-Based Feature Subset Selection: The Harder You Try the Worse it Gets. Research and Development in Intelligent Systems XXI, 33-43. doi:10.1007/1-84628-102-4_3

Prediction of Labor Induction Success from the Uterine Electrohysterogram

Abstract