Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 38 references

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

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-10 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Selective attention to maternal ECG cuts Doppler synthesis error 39%

desk verdict Cross-modal attention for maternal-fetal ECG-to-Doppler synthesis is a genuine methodological contribution, but the headline 39% improvement claim is inflated by a broken baseline. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.08073 v1 pith:O5KVV4HO submitted 2026-07-09 cs.LG eess.SP

Tongli Su , Alireza Rafiei , Marly van Assen , Reza Sameni , Gari D. Clifford , Faezeh Marzbanrad , Nasim Katebi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGeess.SP
keywords cross-modalattentionfetalDopplersynthesismaternal-fetalcardiaccouplingdilatedconvolutionelectrocardiogrampowerspectraldensitymechanismgenerativemodel
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

The paper claims that maternal-fetal cardiac coupling, the intermittent synchronization between maternal and fetal heartbeats, can be computationally exploited to improve fetal Doppler waveform synthesis from ECG, but only when the model learns to selectively attend to maternal signals rather than treating them as uniformly relevant input. The central mechanism is cross-modal attention, where fetal ECG features serve as queries and maternal ECG features as keys and values, allowing the model to emphasize maternal ECG segments temporally correlated with fetal blood flow while suppressing irrelevant noise. Naive concatenation of maternal and fetal ECG provides zero benefit and degrades temporal alignment; cross-modal attention yields a 39% reduction in frequency-domain reconstruction error. The framework also decomposes Doppler waveforms into components recoverable from electrical recordings (timing, morphology, heart rate) and residual components that depend on mechanical factors such as ventricular compliance, placental resistance, and preload, which are invisible to ECG. Clinical indices like pulsatility index and resistance index show near-zero correlation across all architectures, indicating these metrics are mechanically determined and fundamentally inaccessible to ECG-based synthesis.

What carries the argument

Cross-modal attention with fetal features as queries and maternal features as keys/values, combined with dilated residual convolutions for multi-scale temporal modeling and self-attention for long-range beat-to-beat dependencies

What would settle it

If a model with cross-modal attention trained on a larger, more diverse cohort including pathological pregnancies showed no improvement over naive dual-channel concatenation, the claim that selective attention quantifies maternal-fetal coupling would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that maternal-fetal cardiac coupling, while physiologically real, is computationally useless without learned selectivity, and that the boundary between what Doppler information is electrically recoverable versus mechanically determined can be quantified by comparing what attention-based models can and cannot reconstruct from ECG alone.

Load-bearing premise

The 39% improvement attributed to maternal-fetal coupling is measured on 39 mid-gestation, predominantly healthy pregnancies without formal per-segment statistical testing, so the claimed quantification of coupling contribution rests on descriptive mean and standard deviation comparison across a narrow cohort that may not generalize to pathological populations where coupling patterns differ.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Wearable fECG devices could provide continuous fetal heart rate and waveform morphology monitoring where Doppler ultrasound is impractical, though clinical indices dependent on mechanical factors would still require direct Doppler measurement
  • The decomposition framework could be extended to other excitation-contraction coupling systems where electrical and mechanical signals provide complementary information
  • The finding that selective attention outperforms naive fusion suggests that other intermittent physiological couplings, such as cardiorespiratory coupling, may require similar attention-based architectures rather than simple multi-channel approaches
  • Residual Doppler components, those not reconstructable from ECG, may themselves be clinically significant biomarkers if they correlate with mechanical abnormalities like placental dysfunction

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 39% improvement from cross-modal attention genuinely reflects maternal-fetal coupling rather than overfitting to a narrow cohort, then pathological conditions that alter coupling, such as pre-eclampsia or fetal growth restriction, should produce measurably different attention patterns, making attention weights themselves a potential diagnostic signal
  • The near-zero correlation of pulsatility and resistance indices across all architectures suggests that ECG-to-Doppler synthesis may have a fundamental information-theoretic ceiling, which could be quantified by measuring mutual information between ECG features and specific Doppler indices
  • The domain-specific pattern of improvements, frequency-domain and alignment gains but not pointwise amplitude gains, implies that attention mechanisms primarily improve temporal modeling rather than amplitude prediction, which could guide architecture design for other physiological signal translation tasks
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. This paper proposes a cross-modal generative framework that synthesizes fetal Doppler velocity envelopes from fetal and maternal ECG signals. The architecture combines dilated convolutions, cross-modal attention (to selectively incorporate maternal ECG), and self-attention (to capture long-range temporal dependencies). Trained on 885 segments from 39 pregnancies in the NInFEA dataset, the model is evaluated across time-domain, frequency-domain, and clinical metrics. The central claims are: (1) naive maternal ECG concatenation provides no benefit and can degrade performance, while cross-modal attention selectively exploiting maternal-fetal cardiac coupling (MFCC) yields a 39% PSD MSE reduction over the two-channel baseline; and (2) clinical indices such as PI and RI show near-zero correlation across all architectures, revealing mechanically determined Doppler components inaccessible to ECG. The work is well-motivated and the ablation design is thoughtful, but the headline quantification of coupling contribution is framed against a degraded baseline, and the absence of formal statistical testing weakens several comparative claims.

Significance. The paper addresses a clinically meaningful problem: understanding which Doppler waveform components are recoverable from ECG and which require direct mechanical measurement. The decomposition into electrically recoverable versus residual mechanical components is a valuable conceptual contribution. The ablation design isolating cross-modal attention from naive concatenation is a strength, as is the honest reporting that clinical indices (PI, RI) remain unrecoverable. The composite loss function (Eq. 3) balancing pointwise, derivative, and correlation objectives is a reasonable design choice for physiological waveform reconstruction. The finding that naive dual-channel concatenation degrades temporal alignment (DTW) while selective attention restores it is interesting and physiologically interpretable.

major comments (4)
  1. The headline claim that cross-modal attention yields a '39% PSD MSE reduction over naive dual-channel concatenation, quantifying the contribution of maternal-fetal coupling' (Abstract; §IV.B; §V.B) is misleading. Table I shows the two-channel baseline (102.0 dB^2) performs worse than single-channel (84.1 dB^2), so the 39% figure (102.0 to 61.8) conflates recovery from the degraded baseline with genuine coupling benefit. The comparison that isolates maternal information's contribution is cross-attention (61.8) vs. single-channel (84.1), yielding approximately 26%. The authors should reframe the quantification: either report both comparisons transparently or justify why the two-channel baseline is the appropriate reference for 'quantifying coupling.' As stated, the claim that 39% 'quantifies the contribution of maternal-fetal cardiac coupling' is not supported by the experimental design.
  2. The combined attention model (cross+self) achieves the headline PSD MSE of 49.9 dB^2, but cross-attention alone yields 61.8 dB^2. Self-attention thus contributes an additional 19% improvement that is not attributable to maternal-fetal coupling. The abstract and §V.B attribute the 39% figure to cross-modal attention specifically, but the best reported PSD MSE (49.9) includes self-attention gains. The attribution chain needs clarification: what exactly is being claimed as the coupling contribution, and from which model variant?
  3. All comparative claims rest on descriptive mean±SD across five folds without formal statistical testing, which the authors acknowledge in §V.D. For the central claims (39% PSD MSE reduction, 26% DTW improvement), paired statistical tests across folds or per-segment comparisons would substantially strengthen the evidence. Without this, it is unclear whether the reported differences exceed fold-to-fold variability. This is particularly important for the cross-attention vs. single-channel comparison (~26%), where the standard deviations (61.8±16.6 vs. 84.1±17.1) suggest potential overlap.
  4. Table II reports near-zero correlations for PI (r = -0.04 to -0.08) and RI (r = -0.04 to 0.07) across all architectures, which the authors interpret as evidence that these indices depend on mechanically determined factors invisible to ECG (§V.A). This is a strong claim. An alternative explanation is that the model has not learned to reconstruct these features adequately due to dataset size (39 pregnancies), segment length (3.75s), or loss function design. The composite loss (Eq. 3) optimizes pointwise and derivative fidelity but does not explicitly target clinical index accuracy. Can the authors rule out that a loss function or training regime explicitly targeting PI/RI would not improve these correlations? The conclusion that these components are 'fundamentally inaccessible' (§VI) should be softened or supported by additional evidence.
minor comments (6)
  1. §III.A: The segment length of 3.75s is stated to span 6-10 cardiac cycles at 110-160 bpm. At 110 bpm, 3.75s spans approximately 6.9 cycles; at 160 bpm, approximately 10 cycles. This is correct but could be stated more precisely.
  2. Table I: The dagger footnote for two-channel DTW is helpful, but the main text in §IV.B states the two-channel variant has 'substantially worse DTW' without giving the percentage. Adding the percentage degradation (18%, from 287.2 to 340.0) would improve clarity.
  3. §III.C: The loss weight α=0.5 is described as informed by preliminary training runs. Providing more detail on how this was selected (e.g., grid search results) would improve reproducibility.
  4. Figure 2: The figure caption mentions progressive improvements from (a) to (d), but the panels would benefit from annotations marking PSV and EDV points to help readers assess morphological fidelity.
  5. §V.D: The authors mention validation on pathological cohorts is essential. It would strengthen the paper to briefly discuss what specific coupling pattern changes are expected and how the framework could be adapted.
  6. Reference [25] (Verma et al.) and [26] (Rafiei et al.) are cited as prior work on fECG-to-Doppler synthesis. A brief comparison of architectural differences and performance (where comparable metrics exist) would contextualize the contribution.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 39% improvement claim is an empirical ablation result, not a definitional reduction or self-citation chain

full rationale

The paper's central claim — that cross-modal attention yields a 39% PSD MSE reduction over naive dual-channel concatenation — is an empirical ablation result measured on held-out validation data (Table I: two-channel PSD MSE 102.0±20.0 vs. cross-attention 61.8±16.6 dB²). This is not circular: the model is trained on training folds and evaluated on disjoint validation folds with patient-level splitting, so the reported improvement is not forced by construction. The loss function (Eq. 3) combines MAE, derivative error, and correlation with fixed weights (α=0.5), but these weights do not define the output — they are hyperparameters chosen from preliminary training dynamics, and the evaluation metrics (PSD MSE, DTW, etc.) are computed independently of the training loss. The physiological interpretation of maternal-fetal cardiac coupling draws on external citations [8, 9, 33] that are not authored by the present paper's authors (Van Leeuwen et al., Marzbanrad et al., Nichting et al.), providing independent grounding. The self-citations [26, 35-37] reference prior methodological work (Auto-FEDUS, attentive networks) but are not load-bearing for the central quantitative claim — they provide context, not the mathematical basis for the 39% figure. The skeptic's concern about the 39% conflating recovery from a degraded baseline with genuine coupling improvement is a validity/framing concern, not a circularity issue: the numbers in Table I are independently measured, and the comparison is explicitly stated. No equation, definition, or citation chain reduces the claimed result to its inputs by construction. The only minor self-citation is to Auto-FEDUS [26] for prior fECG-to-Doppler work, which is contextual rather than load-bearing. Score: 1 (one minor self-citation, not load-bearing, central claim independently grounded).

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or postulated mechanisms. All architectural components (dilated convolutions, cross-attention, self-attention) are established techniques. The free parameters are standard neural network hyperparameters. The domain axioms rest on cited physiological literature, though the pathway for MFCC is acknowledged as unverified. The main analytical construct—decomposing Doppler into recoverable and residual components—is a framework, not an invented entity.

free parameters (7)
  • α (loss weight) = 0.5
    Composite loss weight set empirically by monitoring training dynamics (§III.C). Informed by preliminary runs to balance gradient contributions.
  • Number of attention heads = 4
    Architecture hyperparameter for multi-head cross-attention and self-attention (§III.B). No justification provided for this specific choice.
  • d_k (attention key dimension) = 64
    Attention mechanism dimensionality (§III.B). Standard choice but not justified.
  • Number of dilated residual blocks = 8
    Architecture depth with dilation rates 2^0 to 2^7 (§III.B). Chosen to span ~0.88s receptive field.
  • Learning rate = 1e-3
    Initial Adam learning rate (§III.D). Standard default.
  • Batch size = 8
    Training batch size (§III.D).
  • Segment length = 3.75s (1065 samples at 284 Hz)
    Input segment duration chosen to span 6-10 cardiac cycles (§III.A).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Maternal-fetal cardiac coupling (MFCC) occurs through hemodynamic, vibroacoustic, or autonomic pathways and is computationally exploitable via attention.
    Invoked in §I and §V.B. Based on external evidence [8, 9, 33] showing phase synchronization and transfer entropy, but the physiological pathways are 'not definitively verified' per the paper's own citation of [9].
  • domain assumption Electromechanical coupling provides a robust basis for cross-modal synthesis: R-R intervals determine pulsation frequency and QRS timing predicts systolic onset.
    Invoked in §V.A. Based on [4, 5, 6]. Standard physiological assumption but the paper extends it to claim that residual components are 'purely mechanical,' which is an inference.
  • domain assumption The NInFEA dataset segments are representative enough to quantify maternal-fetal coupling contributions.
    Implicit in all results. The paper acknowledges (§V.D) that 39 mid-gestation healthy pregnancies may not capture pathological coupling patterns.
  • domain assumption PSD MSE and DTW are appropriate primary metrics for evaluating Doppler reconstruction fidelity.
    The paper emphasizes frequency-domain and alignment metrics over pointwise error (§IV, §V.B). This choice supports the central claim but is not independently validated against clinical utility.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cross-Modal Generative Framework for Signal Translation from Fetal-Maternal Electrocardiograms to Fetal Doppler Waveforms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O5KVV4HO

@misc{pith2026260708073,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cross-Modal Generative Framework for Signal Translation from Fetal-Maternal Electrocardiograms to Fetal Doppler Waveforms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O5KVV4HO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.08073}
}
read the original abstract

Fetal electrocardiogram (fECG) and Doppler ultrasound provide complementary views of fetal cardiovascular function: fECG captures electrical activity while Doppler reflects mechanical hemodynamics shaped by factors such as placental resistance and vascular compliance. Understanding the recoverable and unrecoverable Doppler components through reconstruction from fECG offers insight into the relative contributions of electrical versus mechanical factors in fetal circulation, thereby informing clinical decisions. In addition, clinical evidence of maternal-fetal cardiac coupling suggests that maternal cardiovascular dynamics may also inform fetal hemodynamics. To computationally model these relationships, we propose a cross-modal generative framework combining dilated convolutions with cross-modal attention to selectively incorporate maternal ECG and self-attention to capture long-range temporal dependencies. Trained on 885 synchronized fetal/maternal ECG and Doppler envelope segments from 39 pregnancies, our model synthesizes Doppler envelopes with power spectral density mean squared error (PSD MSE) of 49.9 +/- 15.8 dB^2 (51% lower than two-channel baseline) and heart-rate error of 4.71 +/- 0.77 bpm (1.5% better than baseline; negligible relative to the 110-160 bpm physiological range). Cross-modal attention yields a 39% PSD MSE reduction over naive dual-channel concatenation, quantifying the contribution of maternal-fetal coupling. Our proposed framework advances computational modeling of the maternal-fetal cardiovascular system by enabling the synthesis of Doppler envelopes from dual-lead ECG. By analysis of both recoverable and residual Doppler components, this approach enables quantification of the purely mechanical contributions to Doppler waveforms -- those not recoverable from electrical recordings -- ultimately facilitating a more comprehensive fetal assessment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08073 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed cross-modal generative model. Dilated convolution layers extract features from fetal and maternal ECG, cross-modal attention [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example Doppler velocity envelopes generated by each model variant. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A practical guide to non-invasive foetal electrocardiogram extraction and analysis,

    J. Behar, A. Johnson, G. D. Clifford, and J. Oster, “A practical guide to non-invasive foetal electrocardiogram extraction and analysis,”Physiol. Meas., vol. 35, no. 8, pp. R1–R35, 2014

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Evaluation of conventional Doppler fetal cardiac function parameters: E/A ratios, outflow tracts, and myocardial performance index,

    E. Hernandez-Andradeet al., “Evaluation of conventional Doppler fetal cardiac function parameters: E/A ratios, outflow tracts, and myocardial performance index,”Fetal Diagn. Ther ., vol. 32, no. 1–2, pp. 22–29, 2012

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    New index of combined systolic and diastolic myocardial performance: A simple and reproducible measure of cardiac function,

    C. Teiet al., “New index of combined systolic and diastolic myocardial performance: A simple and reproducible measure of cardiac function,” J. Cardiol., vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 357–366, 1995

    work page 1995

  4. [4]

    Fetal magnetocardiography: Development of the fetal cardiac time intervals,

    C. K ¨ahleret al., “Fetal magnetocardiography: Development of the fetal cardiac time intervals,”Prenat. Diagn., vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 408–414, 2002

    work page 2002

  5. [5]

    Cardiac excitation-contraction coupling,

    D. M. Bers, “Cardiac excitation-contraction coupling,”Nature, vol. 415, no. 6868, pp. 198–205, 2002

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    Assessment of left ventricular pre- ejection period in the fetus using simultaneous magnetocardiography and echocardiography,

    N. A. Mensah-Brownet al., “Assessment of left ventricular pre- ejection period in the fetus using simultaneous magnetocardiography and echocardiography,”Fetal Diagn. Ther ., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 167–174, 2010

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Antepartum non-invasive evaluation of opening and closing timings of the cardiac valves in fetal cardiac cycle,

    A. H. Khandoker, Y . Kimura, T. Ito, N. Sato, K. Okamura, and M. Palaniswami, “Antepartum non-invasive evaluation of opening and closing timings of the cardiac valves in fetal cardiac cycle,”Med. Biol. Eng. Comput., vol. 47, no. 10, pp. 1075–1082, 2009

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Quantifying the interactions between maternal and fetal heart rates by transfer entropy,

    F. Marzbanrad, Y . Kimura, M. Palaniswami, and A. H. Khandoker, “Quantifying the interactions between maternal and fetal heart rates by transfer entropy,”PLoS ONE, vol. 10, no. 12, e0145672, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Evidence and clinical relevance of maternal– fetal cardiac coupling: A scoping review,

    T. J. Nichtinget al., “Evidence and clinical relevance of maternal– fetal cardiac coupling: A scoping review,”PLoS ONE, vol. 18, no. 7, e0287245, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswaniet al., “Attention is all you need,” inProc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., 2017, pp. 5998–6008

    2017

  3. [11]

    Multi-scale context aggregation by dilated convolutions,

    F. Yu and V . Koltun, “Multi-scale context aggregation by dilated convolutions,” inProc. Int. Conf. Learn. Represent. (ICLR), 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    Pixel recurrent neural networks,

    A. van den Oord, N. Kalchbrenner, and K. Kavukcuoglu, “Pixel recurrent neural networks,” inProc. Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. (ICML), 2016, pp. 1747–1756

    2016

  5. [13]

    D. H. Evans and W. N. McDicken,Doppler Ultrasound: Physics, Instrumentation and Signal Processing, 2nd ed. Wiley, 2000

    2000

  6. [14]

    Fetal umbilical artery flow velocity waveforms and placental resistance: Pathological correlation,

    W. B. Gileset al., “Fetal umbilical artery flow velocity waveforms and placental resistance: Pathological correlation,”Br . J. Obstet. Gynaecol., vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 31–38, 1985

    1985

  7. [15]

    ISUOG practice guidelines: Use of Doppler ultra- sonography in obstetrics,

    A. Bhideet al., “ISUOG practice guidelines: Use of Doppler ultra- sonography in obstetrics,”Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol., vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 233–239, 2013

    2013

  8. [16]

    A dynamical model for generating synthetic electrocardiogram signals,

    P. E. McSharry, G. D. Clifford, L. Tarassenko, and L. A. Smith, “A dynamical model for generating synthetic electrocardiogram signals,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 289–294, 2003

    2003

  9. [17]

    Mul- tichannel ECG and noise modeling: Application to maternal and fetal ECG signals,

    R. Sameni, G. D. Clifford, C. Jutten, and M. B. Shamsollahi, “Mul- tichannel ECG and noise modeling: Application to maternal and fetal ECG signals,”EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process., vol. 2007, art. 43407, 2007

    2007

  10. [18]

    WaveNet: A generative model for raw audio,

    A. van den Oordet al., “WaveNet: A generative model for raw audio,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.03499, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Generating electrocardiogram signals by deep learning,

    N. Wulan, W. Wang, P. Sun, W. Wang, S. Xia, and W. Jiang, “Generating electrocardiogram signals by deep learning,”Neurocomputing, vol. 404, pp. 122–136, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    FHRGAN: Generative adversarial networks for synthetic fetal heart rate signal generation in low-resource settings,

    Y . Zhang, Z. Zhao, Y . Deng, and X. Zhang, “FHRGAN: Generative adversarial networks for synthetic fetal heart rate signal generation in low-resource settings,”Inf. Sci., vol. 594, pp. 136–150, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    DiffuSETS: 12-lead ECG generation conditioned on clinical text reports and patient-specific information,

    Y . Laiet al., “DiffuSETS: 12-lead ECG generation conditioned on clinical text reports and patient-specific information,”Patterns, vol. 6, no. 10, 101291, 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    Learning your heart actions from pulse: ECG waveform reconstruction from PPG,

    Q. Zhu, X. Tian, C. Wong, and M. Wu, “Learning your heart actions from pulse: ECG waveform reconstruction from PPG,”IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 8, no. 23, pp. 16734–16748, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Beat-by-beat ECG monitoring from PPG using spatio-temporal information with WaveNet,

    O. Omer, M. Alammar, H. Esmaiel, and M. Salah, “Beat-by-beat ECG monitoring from PPG using spatio-temporal information with WaveNet,” Preprint (ResearchSquare), Nov. 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Reconstruction of pulse wave and respiration from wrist accelerometer during sleep,

    J. Zschockeet al., “Reconstruction of pulse wave and respiration from wrist accelerometer during sleep,”IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 830–839, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Towards recon- struction of pulsed-wave Doppler signals from non-invasive fetal ECG,

    A. Verma, D. S. S. Chintapenta, and S. Mujumder, “Towards recon- struction of pulsed-wave Doppler signals from non-invasive fetal ECG,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.16651, Jan. 2025

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Auto-FEDUS: Autoregressive generative modeling of Doppler ultrasound signals from fetal electro- cardiograms,

    A. Rafiei, G. D. Clifford, and N. Katebi, “Auto-FEDUS: Autoregressive generative modeling of Doppler ultrasound signals from fetal electro- cardiograms,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13233, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Correlation-aware attention CycleGAN for accurate fetal ECG extraction,

    X. Wanget al., “Correlation-aware attention CycleGAN for accurate fetal ECG extraction,”IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 72, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Integrating contrastive learning and CycleGAN for non-invasive fetal ECG extraction,

    R. Quet al., “Integrating contrastive learning and CycleGAN for non-invasive fetal ECG extraction,”Pediatr . Cardiol., vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 2078–2088, 2025

  21. [29]

    Fetal ECG extraction on time–frequency domain using conditional GAN,

    V . D. Nguyen, “Fetal ECG extraction on time–frequency domain using conditional GAN,” inProc. CVPR Workshops, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    NInFEA: Non-invasive multimodal foetal ECG-Doppler dataset for antenatal cardiology research,

    E. Sulaset al., “NInFEA: Non-invasive multimodal foetal ECG-Doppler dataset for antenatal cardiology research,”Sci. Data, vol. 8, no. 30, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Assessment of fetal compromise by Doppler ultrasound investigation of the fetal circulation,

    K. Hecher, R. Campbell, P. Doyle, K. Harrington, and K. Nicolaides, “Assessment of fetal compromise by Doppler ultrasound investigation of the fetal circulation,”Circulation, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 129–138, 1995

    1995

  24. [32]

    Doppler application in the delivery timing of the preterm growth-restricted fetus: Another step in the right direction,

    A. A. Baschat, “Doppler application in the delivery timing of the preterm growth-restricted fetus: Another step in the right direction,”Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 111–118, 2004

    2004

  25. [33]

    Influence of paced maternal breathing on fetal- maternal heart rate coordination,

    P. Van Leeuwen, D. Geue, S. Lange, D. Cysarz, H. Bettermann, and D. Gr ¨onemeyer, “Influence of paced maternal breathing on fetal- maternal heart rate coordination,”Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, vol. 106, no. 33, pp. 13661–13666, 2009

    2009

  26. [34]

    Alterations in maternal-fetal heart rate coupling strength and directions in abnormal fetuses,

    A. H. Khandokeret al., “Alterations in maternal-fetal heart rate coupling strength and directions in abnormal fetuses,”Front. Physiol., vol. 10, p. 482, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Hierarchical at- tentive network for gestational age estimation in low-resource settings,

    N. Katebi, R. Sameni, P. Rohloff, and G. D. Clifford, “Hierarchical at- tentive network for gestational age estimation in low-resource settings,” IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform., vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 2501–2511, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Self-supervised learning for gestational age estimation from low-cost Doppler ultrasound in low-resource settings,

    M. Motie-Shirazi, E. Ramos, S. Chandrasekaran, R. Sameni, P. Rohloff, G. Clifford, and N. Katebi, “Self-supervised learning for gestational age estimation from low-cost Doppler ultrasound in low-resource settings,” inProc. NeurIPS Workshop Learn. Time Ser . Health, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Next-generation fetal heart monitoring: Leveraging neural sequential modeling for ultrasound analysis,

    A. Rafiei, M. Motie-Shirazi, R. Sameni, G. D. Clifford, and N. Katebi, “Next-generation fetal heart monitoring: Leveraging neural sequential modeling for ultrasound analysis,”IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., 2025

    2025

  30. [38]

    The use of fast Fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra: A method based on time averaging over short, modified periodograms,

    P. D. Welch, “The use of fast Fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra: A method based on time averaging over short, modified periodograms,”IEEE Trans. Audio Electroacoust., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 70– 73, 1967

    1967

Pith tools

Reviewed July 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.