Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Auto-FEDUS: Autoregressive Generative Modeling of Doppler Ultrasound Signals from Fetal Electrocardiograms

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Fetal ECG alone can drive realistic Doppler ultrasound waveform generation, down to heart-rate agreement within 4.5 bpm.

desk verdict A useful first FECG-to-DUS synthesis result, but the realism claims rest on validation that is partly circular and a very small dataset. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13233 v1 pith:OEP6MNUN submitted 2025-04-17 cs.LG

Alireza Rafiei , Gari D. Clifford , Nasim Katebi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords fetalmonitoringDopplerultrasoundelectrocardiogramautoregressivegenerativemodeldilatedcausalconvolutionscross-modalsignalsynthesisheartrateestimationdataaugmentation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces Auto-FEDUS, an autoregressive generative model that maps a fetal electrocardiogram (FECG) heartbeat into the corresponding one-dimensional Doppler ultrasound (DUS) heartbeat. The goal is to overcome a bottleneck in fetal health monitoring: DUS datasets are scarce and imbalanced, while FECG data are comparatively abundant. Auto-FEDUS is built on dilated causal convolutions, works directly on raw waveforms, and extrapolates from input sampled at 250 Hz to output at 2 kHz. In leave-one-subject-out tests on 3,923 beats from five subjects, it produces signals that resemble real DUS in both time and frequency, and that a quality model labels as good while a heart-rate estimator agrees with the FECG-based reference to within 4.5 beats per minute.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a WaveNet-style stack of five residual blocks of dilated causal convolutions, with dilation rates 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16, a kernel size of 20, and gated activations (tanh times sigmoid) feeding residual and skip connections. This setup expands the receptive field without adding layers, letting a single causal pass see both the immediate waveform shape and long-range temporal context. That combination is what the paper credits with capturing the short- and long-range dependencies needed to extrapolate a low-frequency electrical signal into a high-frequency mechanical waveform, rather than merely reproducing mean morphology.

What would settle it

Generate a new simultaneous FECG-DUS dataset from a larger, more diverse cohort (e.g., 30 subjects spanning gestational weeks 20-40 and a broad fetal-heart-rate range), run the leave-one-subject-out pipeline, and check whether the FHR estimated from generated DUS stays within the 4.5 bpm Bland-Altman limit and the morphology metrics hold. If errors widen or a quality model begins flagging synthesized segments as non-good, the generalizability of the mapping is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that electrical FECG morphology carries enough information about mechanical cardiac activity that a well-designed autoregressive network can synthesize faithful DUS waveforms from FECG alone. On the paper's own terms, Auto-FEDUS is the first generative model for FECG-to-DUS cross-modal extrapolation, and it outperforms alternative generative architectures (autoencoder, LSTM GAN, DCGAN, WGAN-GP) on seven of eight time- and frequency-domain similarity metrics. The generated DUS segments are classified as good quality by a dedicated signal-quality assessment model, and the fetal heart rate estimated from them agrees with the real FECG-derived heart rate almost as well as the real DUS does: Bland-Altman limit 4.5 bpm, RMSE 2.3 vs 2.2 bpm, and PICP 96.7% vs 98.1%.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's core assumption is that the electrical morphology of a fetal heartbeat determines the Doppler ultrasound morphology closely enough that a mapping learned from 3,923 beats of five subjects will generalize to new subjects; if the FECG-to-DUS relationship is subject-specific or highly variable, the generated signals can look plausible without being clinically faithful.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Synthesized DUS signals can augment scarce, imbalanced DUS datasets for training machine-learning models that assess fetal health.
  • Auto-FEDUS generates clinically usable 3.75-second DUS segments by sequentially feeding heartbeat FECGs, and a quality model labels all such generated segments as good.
  • Because FHR estimates from generated DUS agree with FECG-derived references to within 4.5 bpm, the synthetic signals preserve the heart-rate information needed for screening.
  • The autoregressive approach handles mismatched sampling frequencies, so FECG recordings made with inexpensive hardware can be leveraged for DUS-based monitoring pipelines.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the cross-modal mapping is as faithful as reported, FECG-only recordings from low-resource settings could be converted into synthetic DUS, effectively repurposing the abundant FECG modality as a source of paired training data.
  • The paper's own ablation suggests the model degrades beyond three consecutive beats, so segment-length synthesis in practice may need error correction or conditioning on longer context.
  • The five-subject dataset limits the plausible range of FECG-DUS couplings; testing on varied gestational ages and pathologies (e.g., growth restriction, congenital heart defects) would reveal whether the learned mapping is universal or cohort-specific.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Auto-FEDUS, an autoregressive convolutional model (based on WaveNet-style dilated causal convolutions) that maps fetal electrocardiogram (FECG) heartbeats to corresponding Doppler ultrasound (DUS) waveforms. The authors evaluate the model with leave-one-subject-out cross-validation on a dataset of five subjects (3,923 beats), comparing against an autoencoder, LSTM-GAN, DCGAN, and WGAN-GP using eight time/frequency domain metrics. They also generate 3.75 s DUS segments by feeding consecutive FECG heartbeats, then assess these segments with an external DUS quality classifier and a fetal heart rate (FHR) estimation model, reporting that all generated segments are classified as good quality and that FHR agreement with labels is comparable to real signals (Bland-Altman 4.5 bpm, PICP 96.7%). The central claim is that Auto-FEDUS produces realistic DUS signals that can augment scarce DUS datasets for fetal monitoring applications.

Significance. If the claims were fully validated, the work would be a useful contribution to a genuinely under-explored area: synthetic DUS generation for fetal monitoring, with a sensible subject-independent evaluation protocol and a direct practical motivation (data scarcity). The paper also provides a broad comparison against several generative baselines, which is a strength. The leave-one-out scheme is appropriate given the small dataset, and the idea of using external quality and FHR models as downstream validators is sound in principle. However, the current evidence does not establish the main claim of morphological realism: the FHR validation is largely circular, the quality-model result lacks a baseline on real signals, and the quantitative metrics show small differences with overlapping standard deviations and no significance testing. These issues are fixable and do not invalidate the approach itself, but they currently undermine the paper's central assertions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Use Case Scenario; Appendix B; Figure 4(c); Table 3] The FHR-based validation is circular. The generated 3.75 s segments are produced by feeding consecutive FECG heartbeats into Auto-FEDUS, and the label FHR is derived from the R-peaks of that same FECG. The input FECG therefore fully determines the timing (and hence the heart rate) of the output DUS; any model that outputs a periodic signal at the input heart rate, regardless of waveform fidelity, will show high FHR agreement. The Bland-Altman limit of 4.5 bpm and PICP of 96.7% in Table 3 only demonstrate periodicity preservation, not morphological realism. The authors should either remove the FHR agreement as evidence for realism, or compare against a trivial baseline that re-synthesizes DUS at the input heart rate and show that Auto-FEDUS achieves significantly better morphology metrics than that baseline.
  2. [Use Case Scenario; first paragraph] The quality assessment result that all 303 generated segments are classified as 'good' is not interpretable without a baseline. The authors do not report the quality-model's classification distribution for the real DUS segments in their test set. If the quality model is biased toward 'good', or if the real segments have a different distribution (e.g., many are 'poor' or 'interference'), the result would not support the claim that generated signals match real ones. Please report the quality-model breakdown on real segments and, ideally, the score distributions for real vs. generated signals.
  3. [Quantitative Evaluation and Analysis; Table 1] The claim that Auto-FEDUS outperforms the baselines is supported by small metric gaps with overlapping standard deviations, and no significance tests are reported. For example, RMSE is 0.20 ± 0.01 for Auto-FEDUS versus 0.22 ± 0.01 for WGAN-GP, MAE is 0.14 ± 0.01 versus 0.15 ± 0.01, and KLD is 0.05 ± 0.01 versus 0.03 ± 0.02 (the latter actually favoring WGAN-GP). With only five leave-one-out folds, the authors should report per-fold paired comparisons, confidence intervals, or a paired significance test (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank) to substantiate the superiority claim.
  4. [Qualitative Evaluation; Methodology; Figure 4(a)] The paper concedes that 'DUS signals are highly variable; even for relatively similar FECG signals, their structures can vary over time,' yet Auto-FEDUS is a deterministic mapping trained with MSE loss. Such a model can only produce the conditional mean of the DUS distribution given an FECG beat, which is at odds with the acknowledged variability and will tend to over-smooth high-frequency components. The lower PSD of generated signals in Figure 4(a) is consistent with this concern. The authors should either make the model stochastic (e.g., by modeling a conditional distribution) or explicitly justify why a deterministic conditional-mean mapping is sufficient for the targeted downstream tasks, and evaluate the effect on morphological fidelity.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Dataset paragraph] There is a missing space in 'channelAs a result' — it should read 'channel. As a result'.
  2. [Training Details] The phrase '0.97 milli seconds' should be '0.97 milliseconds'.
  3. [Figure 4 caption] The caption should explicitly state that FHRLabel is computed from FECG R-peaks of the input signal, which helps readers understand the circularity concern in the FHR comparison.
  4. [Appendix B, first sentence] The phrase 'subject-wise training and evaluation' is ambiguous; please clarify whether the 2- and 3-beat ablation used subject-independent folds or within-subject training, since this affects interpretation.
  5. [Related Generative Models] The description of the autoencoder appears to invert the encoder and decoder roles: the decoder is described with max pooling and the encoder with upsampling. Please check and correct the descriptions.
  6. [Qualitative Evaluation] Only two qualitative examples are shown in Figure 3; given the acknowledged variability, including failure cases or a larger random sample would strengthen the visual assessment.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

FHR use-case validation is partly circular because the label is derived from the same FECG input that conditions the generated DUS timing; the core waveform-fidelity metrics remain independent.

  1. self definitional [Use Case Scenario / Appendix B (Bland-Altman plot, Table 3, Fig. 4c)]
    "we leveraged its autoregressive capability to generate standard 3.75 s segments of DUS signals by sequentially inputting consecutive heartbeat FECG signals into the model ... the label heart rate was derived from real FECG R-peak locations."

    The generated 3.75 s DUS segment is produced by feeding consecutive FECG heartbeats into Auto-FEDUS, and the FHR label is computed from those same FECG R-peaks. Since Auto-FEDUS is trained on FECG/DUS beat pairs aligned by R-peak locations, the periodicity of the output is inherited directly from the input; any model that emits one waveform per input beat at the input rate will produce FHR estimates close to the FECG-derived label. The Bland-Altman 4.5 bpm and PICP 96.7% therefore verify timing preservation, not DUS morphological realism, so this use case cannot independently confirm the realism claim.

full rationale

The central FECG-to-DUS mapping is trained and tested on held-out subjects against real DUS waveforms; Table 1 reports direct waveform-domain metrics (RMSE, MAE, KLD, SE, PSDD, CD, SF, FD) and Figure 4(a)/(b) show PSD and t-SNE comparisons. These are external benchmarks and do not reduce to the model's inputs. The quality-assessment and FHR models are self-cited prior works (Motie-Shirazi et al. 2023; Rafiei et al. 2024), but using them as pre-trained evaluators is not itself circular. The one genuinely circular validation is the FHR use case: the FHR label is derived from the FECG R-peaks that are also the conditioning input for generating the DUS segments, so FHR agreement is an expected consequence of timing inheritance rather than a test of waveform fidelity. The paper even concedes DUS morphology is highly variable for similar FECG signals, weakening the assumption that FECG determines DUS structure. Overall, because the core generation claim is supported by independent direct comparisons, the circularity is partial and localized to the FHR use-case evidence.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the availability of paired FECG-DUS data, the sufficiency of FECG information, and the reliability of external validation models. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Architecture hyperparameters
    Hand-chosen values: 64 filters, kernel size 20, 5 residual blocks, dilations 1,2,4,8,16. No hyperparameter search or sensitivity analysis is reported, so performance may depend on these choices.
  • Preprocessing filter cutoffs = DUS 25-600 Hz, FECG 3-45 Hz
    Bandpass cutoffs chosen based on prior work, not systematically optimized.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The dataset is representative enough for cross-subject generalization.
    Leave-one-out validation is performed on only 5 subjects; the central claim of generalizable generation rests on this small sample.
  • domain assumption FECG contains sufficient information to determine DUS morphology.
    The generative model assumes the electrical signal determines the mechanical Doppler signal. The paper acknowledges that similar FECGs can yield variable DUS, so this assumption is only partially true.
  • domain assumption The quality assessment and FHR estimation models provide valid proxies for realism.
    The paper uses these models to validate the generated signals, but their reliability is not independently established in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Auto-FEDUS: Autoregressive Generative Modeling of Doppler Ultrasound Signals from Fetal Electrocardiograms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OEP6MNUN

@misc{pith2026250413233,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Auto-FEDUS: Autoregressive Generative Modeling of Doppler Ultrasound Signals from Fetal Electrocardiograms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OEP6MNUN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13233}
}
read the original abstract

Fetal health monitoring through one-dimensional Doppler ultrasound (DUS) signals offers a cost-effective and accessible approach that is increasingly gaining interest. Despite its potential, the development of machine learning based techniques to assess the health condition of mothers and fetuses using DUS signals remains limited. This scarcity is primarily due to the lack of extensive DUS datasets with a reliable reference for interpretation and data imbalance across different gestational ages. In response, we introduce a novel autoregressive generative model designed to map fetal electrocardiogram (FECG) signals to corresponding DUS waveforms (Auto-FEDUS). By leveraging a neural temporal network based on dilated causal convolutions that operate directly on the waveform level, the model effectively captures both short and long-range dependencies within the signals, preserving the integrity of generated data. Cross-subject experiments demonstrate that Auto-FEDUS outperforms conventional generative architectures across both time and frequency domain evaluations, producing DUS signals that closely resemble the morphology of their real counterparts. The realism of these synthesized signals was further gauged using a quality assessment model, which classified all as good quality, and a heart rate estimation model, which produced comparable results for generated and real data, with a Bland-Altman limit of 4.5 beats per minute. This advancement offers a promising solution for mitigating limited data availability and enhancing the training of DUS-based fetal models, making them more effective and generalizable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13233 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Auto-FEDUS’s architecture for generative map [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of real and generated signals for two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Real and generated data characteristics. (a) PSD analysis (b) t-SNE visualization (c) Bland-Altman plot. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Different signals and the location of heartbeats [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The custom MATLAB graphical user interface de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) DUS and FECG signals and their envelopes (b) Mean cross-correlation between the envelopes of DUS and FECG [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Reliability and comparative analysis. (a) t-SNE visualization (b) Scatter plot of the correlation between the real and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A 3.75 s segment of real FECG data and its corresponding real and generated DUS waveforms. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Cross-Modal Generative Framework for Signal Translation from Fetal-Maternal Electrocardiograms to Fetal Doppler Waveforms

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A cross-modal attention network reconstructs fetal Doppler envelopes from fetal-maternal ECG, showing selective maternal ECG fusion improves frequency-domain fidelity by 39% over naive concatenation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    M.; Salah, M.; Omer, O

    Abdelgaber, K. M.; Salah, M.; Omer, O. A.; Farghal, A. E. A.; and Mubarak, A. S. 2023. Subject-independent per beat PPG to single-lead ECG mapping. Information, 14(7): 377

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Agostinelli, A.; Marcantoni, I.; Moretti, E.; Sbrollini, A.; Fioretti, S.; Di Nardo, F.; and Burattini, L. 2017. Noninvasive fetal electrocardiography part I: Pan-Tompkins ' algorithm adaptation to fetal R-peak identification. The open biomedical engineering journal, 11: 17

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Andreotti, F.; Behar, J.; Zaunseder, S.; Oster, J.; and Clifford, G. D. 2016. An open-source framework for stress-testing non-invasive foetal ECG extraction algorithms. Physiological Measurement, 37(5): 627

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Arjovsky, M.; Chintala, S.; and Bottou, L. 2017. W asserstein generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, 214--223

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    D.; and Visvanathan, A

    Banerjee, R.; Sinha, A.; Choudhury, A. D.; and Visvanathan, A. 2014. PhotoECG : Photoplethysmographyto estimate ECG parameters. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 4404--4408

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Chen, W.; Li, Z.; and Zhang, G. 2023. A Deep Learning Method to Translate Phonocardiogram ( PCG ) Signals to Electrocardiogram ( ECG ) Waveforms. In 2023 IEEE 13th International Conference on CYBER Technology in Automation, Control, and Intelligent Systems (CYBER), 865--869

    work page 2023

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    A.; Crispi, F.; Cruz-Lemini, M.; Palau, G.; Camara, O.; Gratacos, E.; and Bijens, B

    Garcia-Canadilla, P.; Rudenick, P. A.; Crispi, F.; Cruz-Lemini, M.; Palau, G.; Camara, O.; Gratacos, E.; and Bijens, B. H. 2014. A Computational Model of the Fetal Circulation to Quantify Blood Redistribution in Intrauterine Growth Restriction. PLoS Computational Biology, 10(6...

    2014

  2. [10]

    Gibb, D.; and Arulkumaran, S. 2023. Fetal Monitoring in Practice. Elsevier, Churchill Livingstone, 5th edition

    2023

  3. [11]

    N.; Chang, C.-C.; and Li, Y.-H

    Harfiya, L. N.; Chang, C.-C.; and Li, Y.-H. 2021. Continuous blood pressure estimation using exclusively photopletysmography by LSTM -based signal-to-signal translation. Sensors, 21(9): 2952

    2021

  4. [12]

    E.; Khandakar, A.; Salman Khan, M.; Ayari, M

    Ibtehaz, N.; Mahmud, S.; Chowdhury, M. E.; Khandakar, A.; Salman Khan, M.; Ayari, M. A.; Tahir, A. M.; and Rahman, M. S. 2022. PPG2ABP : Translating photoplethysmogram ( PPG ) signals to arterial blood pressure ( ABP ) waveforms. Bioengineering, 9(11): 692

    2022

  5. [13]

    Karras, T.; Aila, T.; Laine, S.; and Lehtinen, J. 2018. Progressive growing of GANs for improved quality, stability, and variation

    2018

  6. [14]

    Katebi, N.; Sameni, R.; Rohloff, P.; and Clifford, G. D. 2023. Hierarchical attentive network for gestational age estimation in low-resource settings. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 27(5): 2501--2511

    2023

  7. [15]

    C.; Lee, D.; Do, H.; Park, D

    Kong, N. C.; Lee, D.; Do, H.; Park, D. H.; Xu, C.; Mao, H.; and Chung, J. 2024. f-GAN : A frequency-domain-constrained generative adversarial network for PPG to ECG synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16896

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    H.; Kimura, Y.; Palaniswami, M.; and Clifford, G

    Marzbanrad, F.; Khandoker, A. H.; Kimura, Y.; Palaniswami, M.; and Clifford, G. D. 2017. Assessment of fetal development using cardiac valve intervals. Frontiers in Physiology, 8

    2017

  9. [17]

    Marzbanrad, F.; Stroux, L.; and Clifford, G. D. 2018. Cardiotocography and beyond: a review of one-dimensional Doppler ultrasound application in fetal monitoring. Physiological Measurement, 39(8): 08TR01

    2018

  10. [18]

    Motie-Shirazi, M.; Sameni, R.; Rohloff, P.; Katebi, N.; and Clifford, G. D. 2023. Point-of-care real-time signal quality for fetal Doppler ultrasound using a deep learning approach. In Conference on Machine Learning for Health (ML4H)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Oord, A. v. d.; Dieleman, S.; Zen, H.; Simonyan, K.; Vinyals, O.; Graves, A.; Kalchbrenner, N.; Senior, A.; and Kavukcuoglu, K. 2016. WaveNet : A generative model for raw audio. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.03499

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Pennati, M.; Bellotti, M.; and Fumero, R. 1997. Mathematical modelling of the human foetal cardiovascular system based on D oppler ultrasound data. Medical Engineering & Physics, 19(4): 327--335

    1997

  13. [21]

    B.; Pahuja, S

    Queyam, A. B.; Pahuja, S. K.; and Singh, D. 2017. Simulation and analysis of umbilical blood flow using M arkov-based mathematical model. International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications, 9: 41

    2017

  14. [22]

    D.; and Katebi, N

    Rafiei, A.; Motie-Shirazi, M.; Sameni, R.; Clifford, G. D.; and Katebi, N. 2024. AutoFHR: A Neural Temporal Model for Fetal Cardiac Activity Analysis. In Conference on Machine Learning for Health (ML4H)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Sameni, R. 2012. OSET : the open-source electrophysiological toolbox. Version 3.14 [Electronic Resource]

    2012

  16. [24]

    D.; Jutten, C.; and Shamsollahi, M

    Sameni, R.; Clifford, G. D.; Jutten, C.; and Shamsollahi, M. B. 2007. Multichannel ECG and noise modeling: Application to maternal and fetal ECG signals. EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing, 2007: 1--14

    2007

  17. [25]

    Sarkar, P.; and Etemad, A. 2021. CardioGAN : attentive generative adversarial network with dual discriminators for synthesis of ECG from PPG . Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(1): 488--496

    2021

  18. [26]

    Shome, D.; Sarkar, P.; and Etemad, A. 2024. Region-disentangled diffusion model for high-fidelity PPG -to- ECG translation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 15009--15019

    2024

  19. [27]

    W.; Georgieva, A.; Payne, S

    Stroux, L.; Redman, C. W.; Georgieva, A.; Payne, S. J.; and Clifford, G. D. 2017. Doppler‐based fetal heart rate analysis markers for the detection of early intrauterine growth restriction. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 96(11): 1322--1329

    2017

  20. [28]

    Sulas, E.; Urru, M.; Tumbarello, R.; Raffo, L.; Sameni, R.; and Pani, D. 2021. A non-invasive multimodal foetal ECG–Doppler dataset for antenatal cardiology research. Scientific Data, 8: 30

    2021

  21. [29]

    Tian, X.; Zhu, Q.; Li, Y.; and Wu, M. 2020. Cross-domain joint dictionary learning for ECG reconstruction from PPG . In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 936--940

    2020

  22. [30]

    UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation (UN IGME) . 2020. A neglected tragedy: the global burden of stillbirths, Report

    2020

  23. [31]

    UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation (UNIGME) . 2021. Levels and trends in child mortality, Report

    2021

  24. [32]

    E.; Stroux, L.; Katebi, N.; Paljug, E.; Hall-Clifford, R.; Rohloff, P.; Marzbanrad, F.; and Clifford, G

    Valderrama, C. E.; Stroux, L.; Katebi, N.; Paljug, E.; Hall-Clifford, R.; Rohloff, P.; Marzbanrad, F.; and Clifford, G. D. 2019. An open source autocorrelation-based method for fetal heart rate estimation from one-dimensional Doppler ultrasound. Physiological Measurement, 40(2...

    2019

  25. [33]

    Vo, K.; El-Khamy, M.; and Choi, Y. 2023. PPG to ECG signal translation for continuous atrial fibrillation detection via attention-based deep state-space modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.15375

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    K.; Naderi, A.; Jilani, D.; Rahmani, A

    Vo, K.; Naeini, E. K.; Naderi, A.; Jilani, D.; Rahmani, A. M.; Dutt, N.; and Cao, H. 2021. P2E - WGAN : ECG waveform synthesis from PPG with conditional wasserstein generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing , 1030--10...

    2021

  27. [35]

    Yamamoto, K.; Hiromatsu, R.; and Ohtsuki, T. 2020. ECG signal reconstruction via Doppler sensor by hybrid deep learning model with CNN and LSTM . IEEE Access, 8: 130551--130560

    2020

  28. [36]

    Yu, D.; Bouazizi, M.; and Ohtsukil, T. 2023. Improving heart rate range classification using Doppler radar with GAN -based data augmentation. In IEEE Global Communications Conference ( GLOBECOM ) , 3885--3890

    2023

  29. [37]

    Zhu, Q.; Tian, X.; Wong, C.-W.; and Wu, M. 2021. Learning your heart actions from pulse: ECG waveform reconstruction from PPG . IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 8(23): 16734--16748

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.