Clustering with Pairs of Prototypes to Support Automated Assessment of the Fetal State

Figures & data

Table 1. The classification results for the CTU-UHB dataset using the presented clustering.

	FCMpb1	FCMpb2	FCMpb3	FCMpbd1	FCMpbd2	FCMpbd3
pH
QI	62.83 (4.27)	63.52 (3.94)	63.66 (3.89)	57.09 (3.95)	60.80 (3.86)	61.05 (3.80)
ACC	72.24 (1.87)	72.70 (2.09)	73.37 (2.31)	70.86 (2.06)	71.65 (1.91)	72.13 (1.94)
OR
QI	68.29 (2.77)	67.90 (2.75)	67.68 (2.52)	60.08 (2.60)	63.12 (3.12)	64.02 (2.54)
ACC	70.68 (2.59)	70.21 (2.52)	69.92 (2.17)	64.04 (2.36)	66.65 (2.69)	67.42 (2.04)

Table 2. Comparison of the results for the CTU-UHB dataset with the applied reference methods.

	pH			OR
	LSVM	(c + p)-means	FCMpb3	LSVM	(c + p)-means	FCMpb1
	ν = 70,000	m = 1.1, c = 20	m = 1.1, c = 16	ν = 700	m = 1.1, c = 20	m = 1.1, c = 14
	χ = 0.1	K = 40, γ = 0.2	K = 40, Mq3	χ = 0.1	K = 40, γ = 0.5	K = 35, Mq3
			W = 5, γ = 0.9			W = 1, γ = 1.2
QI	52.32 (3.34)	62.76 (3.94)	63.66 (3.89)	54.78 (2.97)	65.78 (3.24)	68.29 (2.77)
ACC	58.78 (2.74)	73.70 (1.84)	73.37 (2.31)	58.25 (2.46)	68.83 (2.26)	70.68 (2.59)
Se	41.08 (5.77)	45.57 (6.68)	47.58 (6.13)	44.46 (5.41)	55.82 (6.53)	59.61 (4.82)
Sp	67.20 (4.49)	87.08 (3.41)	85.64 (3.22)	67.96 (4.39)	77.98 (3.97)	78.46 (4.20)
PPV	37.40 (3.48)	63.06 (4.31)	61.47 (4.98)	49.45 (3.37)	64.22 (3.21)	66.32 (4.28)
NPV	70.58 (1.85)	77.15 (1.82)	77.49 (1.89)	63.52 (2.02)	71.62 (2.50)	73.46 (2.21)

Table 3. The classification results for the SisPorto dataset using the presented clustering.

	FCMpb1	FCMpb2	FCMpb3	FCMpbd1	FCMpbd2	FCMpbd3
QIm	92.77 (1.05)	92.91 (1.01)	92.66 (1.19)	91.37 (2.65)	91.55 (1.25)	91.47 (2.49)
ACCm	87.32 (1.57)	87.81 (1.62)	87.75 (1.90)	85.13 (3.47)	85.36 (1.86)	85.63 (2.95)
ACC	91.81 (0.66)	91.69 (0.71)	91.60 (1.04)	86.74 (0.94)	89.89 (0.73)	87.87 (0.89)

Table 4. Comparison of the results for the SisPorto dataset with the applied reference methods.

	LSVM	(c + p)-means	FCMpb2
QIm	90.65 (1.26)	91.79 (1.14)	92.91 (1.01)
ACC	92.16 (0.74)	86.59 (0.79)	91.69 (0.71)
ACCm	84.72 (1.96)	85.62 (1.49)	87.81 (1.62)
ACCN	96.28 (0.90)	87.56 (1.07)	94.10 (0.80)
ACCS	74.04 (4.40)	78.77 (3.40)	79.03 (4.64)
ACCA	83.84 (4.41)	90.53 (3.10)	90.28 (2.79)

Table 5. The binary classifiers in the three-class classification of the SisPorto dataset.

		LSVM	(c + p)-means	FCMpb2
		v = 70	m = 1.1, c = 2	m = 1.5, c = 7, K = 17
		χ = 0.7	K = 4, γ = 0.3	Mm, W = 1, γ = 0.8
NS	QI	86.08 (2.01)	84.55 (2.29)	87.41 (2.39)
	ACC	93.61 (0.65)	87.28 (0.75)	92.40 (0.70)
		ν = 7000	m = 1.1, c = 11	m = 1.1, c = 9, K = 22
		χ = 0.007	K = 22, γ = 1.3	M0, W = 4, γ = 0.9
NA	QI	94.94 (1.54)	97.01 (1.26)	97.65 (0.91)
	ACC	98.63 (0.38)	98.37 (0.50)	98.83 (0.30)
		ν = 40	m = 1.1, c = 13	m = 1.1, c = 16, K = 40
		χ = 0.4	K = 26, γ = 1.6	Mq2, W = 1, γ = 0.6
SA	QI	90.93 (2.17)	93.82 (1.60)	93.66 (1.48)
	ACC	91.76 (1.79)	94.36 (1.46)	94.14 (1.35)

Table 6. Comparison of the classification results (from literature) for the SisPorto dataset.

Reference	Validating procedure	ACC	ACCN	ACCS	ACCA
(Tomas et al. 2013)	single division	93.7	97.5	75.3	91.4
(Yilmaz and Kilikcier 2013)	10-fold cross-validation	91.6	96.9	70.5	76.7
(Sundar, Chitradevi, and Geetharamani 2012)	10 trials	—	99.1	36.9	97.5
(Das, Roy, and Saha 2013)	5-fold cross-validation	94.6	90.3	78.0	87.5
(Menai, Mohder, and Al-Mutairi 2013)	100 trials	94.0	—	—	—
FCMpb2	100 divisions	91.7	94.1	79.0	90.3

Table 7. Statistical significance of the differences between the results for the pH approach; the symbol “+” denotes statistically significant difference (p-value < 0.05).

	FCMpb1	FCMpb2	FCMpb3	FCMpbd1	FCMpbd2	FCMpbd3
ACC
LSVM	+	+	+	+	+	+
(c + p)-means	+	+	0.245	+	+	+
QI
LSVM	+	+	+	+	+	+
(c + p)-means	0.880	0.102	0.068	+	+	+

Table 8. Statistical significance of the differences between the results (ACC) for the SisPorto dataset, the symbol “+” denotes statistically significant difference (p-value < 0.05).

	FCMpb1	FCMpb2	FCMpb3	FCMpbd1	FCMpbd2	FCMpbd3
LSVM	+	+	+	+	+	+
(c + p)-means	+	+	+	0.065	+	+

Figure 1. The influence of the initial number of clusters per class (c) on the classification quality (QI).

Tomas, P., J. Krohova, P. Dohnalek, and P. Gajdos. 2013. Classification of cardiotocography records by random forest. In 2013 36th International conference on telecommunications and signal processing (TSP), eds. N. Herencsar, K.Molnar, Brno, Czech Republic: Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Communication, Brno University of Technology. 620–623. Papers from this conference are available in IEEE Xplore Digital Library.

 Google Scholar

Yilmaz, E., and C. Kilikcier. 2013. Determination of fetal state from cardiotocogram using LS-SVM with particle swarm optimization and binary decision tree. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine 2013:1–8.

 Google Scholar

Sundar, C., M. Chitradevi, and G. Geetharamani. 2012. Classification of cardiotocogram data using neural network based machine learning technique. International Journal of Computer Applications 47 (14):19–25. doi:10.5120/7256-0279.

 Google Scholar

Das, S., K. Roy, and C. K. Saha (2013). Application of FURIA in the classification of cardiotocograph. In IEEE-international conference on research and development prospects on engineering and technology (ICRDPET 2013) Vol. 4, 120–124. IEEE.

 Google Scholar

Menai, M. E. B., F. J. Mohder, and F. Al-Mutairi. 2013. Influence of feature selection on naïve Bayes classifier for recognizing patterns in cardiotocograms. Journal of Medical and Bioengineering 2 (1):66–70.

 Google Scholar