Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 46 references

Electrical and Mechanical Modeling of Uterine Contractions Analysis Using Connectivity Methods and Graph Theory

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Simulated EHG signals rank the features that best track each driver of uterine synchronization.

desk verdict Useful, honest parameter sweep of connectivity/graph features on simulated EHG, but the abstract's mechanotransduction claim outruns the paper's own admitted electrode-size limitation. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10544 v1 pith:5QU7MIT4 submitted 2025-01-17 physics.med-ph

Kamil Bader El Dine , Noujoud Nader , Mohamad Khalil , Catherine Marque This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.med-ph
keywords pretermlaborelectrohysterography(EHG)uterinesynchronizationconnectivitymethodsgraphtheorymechanotransductionelectricaldiffusionsimulatedEHGsignals
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

Preterm labor prediction would be stronger if clinicians knew which electrohysterography (EHG) features actually reflect the two physiological drivers of uterine synchronization: short-range electrical diffusion and long-range mechanotransduction. This paper claims that simulated EHG signals from a multiscale electromechanical uterine model can identify those features. Ranking features by how their connectivity values change as model parameters shift, it finds that H2-based measures are the most sensitive to both drivers, with H2 combined with Strength best for mechanotransduction and H2 with Efficiency, PageRank, or Betweenness Centrality best for electrical diffusion. If correct, the result defines a compact feature set for monitoring contraction efficiency and, ultimately, for improving preterm labor detection.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the conversion of multichannel EHG signals into connectivity matrices and then into weighted graphs: each electrode is a node and each connectivity value is an edge weight, from which graph metrics are extracted. The connectivity measures are the nonlinear correlation coefficient H2, the linear cross-correlation R2, the filtered windowed H2 (FW_h2), and the imaginary part of coherence (ICOH); the graph metrics are Strength, Clustering Coefficient, Efficiency, PageRank, and Betweenness Centrality. Feature sensitivity is quantified by the slope of each normalized feature against the varied model parameter, with 50 simulations per parameter setting and a student test for significance.

What would settle it

Record EHG on a pregnant uterus with an electrode array larger than 10 cm x 10 cm and measure H2(Str), H2(Eff), H2(PR), and H2(BC) during preterm-labor contractions; if these features do not track the expected synchronization increase, or if the simulated ranking reverses, the paper's feature-selection claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using a 4x4 electrode matrix over a simulated uterus, the paper generates EHG signals under two regimes: electrical diffusion alone (ED), by varying tissue resistance, and electrical diffusion plus mechanotransduction (EDM), by varying five mechanotransduction parameters. For each regime it computes four connectivity methods (H2, R2, FW_h2, ICOH), with and without five graph metrics, and orders the features by the slope of their normalized response. The paper's central claim is that the best features for detecting mechanotransduction shifts are H2 alone or combined with Str, R2(PR), and ICOH(Str), while the best features for detecting electrical diffusion shifts are H2 alone and combined with Eff, PR, and BC. The paper further claims that FW_h2 is prominent for mechanotransduction and that a simplified electromechanical model suffices to monitor uterine synchronization from simulated EHGs, despite acknowledged simplifications.

Load-bearing premise

The rankings are only as trustworthy as the simulation: simulated EHG signals must change with tissue resistance and mechanotransduction parameters the way real uterine electrical activity does, and the paper's own electrode grid is too small to fully capture mechanotransduction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A minimal feature set (H2 with Str for mechanotransduction; H2 with Eff, PR, or BC for diffusion) could be prioritized in future preterm-labor classifiers.
  • FW_h2's strong showing supports filtering EHG to the low-frequency band when targeting mechanotransduction.
  • The rankings give modelers a target: simulated EHG features should respond to the same parameter shifts that real labor does.
  • The 0.1-0.7 Hz passband identified for simulated EHG FW_h2 could guide filter settings for real recordings.
  • H2's dual sensitivity indicates nonlinear correlation captures both local diffusion and long-distance synchronization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because real labor changes electrical diffusion and mechanotransduction together, the single-parameter perturbation design may underestimate interactions between the two; a combined-parameter sweep would test this.
  • The authors note the 10 cm x 10 cm electrode grid is too small to capture long-distance mechanotransduction, so the H2(Str) ranking might change with a larger electrode array.
  • The slope-ranking method could be reused to validate other biophysical models of uterine activity, not just this one.
  • A direct testable extension is to record real EHG with a wider electrode matrix and check whether H2(Str) increases in labor as the simulated ranking predicts.
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 proposes a framework for identifying which connectivity features and graph metrics are most sensitive to the two modeled drivers of uterine synchronization: electrical diffusion (ED) and mechanotransduction (EDM). Simulated EHG signals are generated with a multiscale electromechanical uterine model, using a 4x4 electrode matrix, in two groups: one varying tissue resistance (ED) and one varying five mechanotransduction parameters (EDM). Four connectivity measures (H2, R2, FW_h2, ICOH) and five graph metrics (Str, CC, Eff, PR, BC) are computed, and feature sensitivities are assessed by the slopes of feature values versus model parameters after normalization to the first parameter value. The abstract and discussion claim that the best features for detecting mechanotransduction shifts are H2 alone or combined with Str, R2(PR), and ICOH(Str), and that the best features for electrical diffusion shifts are H2, Eff, PR, and BC. The paper also compares these simulated rankings with rankings from real EHG signals using Fscore and AUC.

Significance. If the claims were fully supported, the paper would offer a useful model-based approach for selecting a minimal set of EHG connectivity features to monitor uterine synchronization, with potential implications for preterm-labor monitoring. The study has notable strengths: it systematically varies model parameters, uses 50 simulations per setting, evaluates four connectivity methods and five graph metrics, and compares simulated and real EHG feature rankings. The central claim, however, is only partially supported because the admitted limitation that the 4x4 electrode matrix does not fully capture mechanotransduction directly undermines the stated conclusion about mechanotransduction feature detection. With a revised, narrower claim and proper statistical reporting, the framework could still be a valuable contribution for comparing feature sensitivities in simulated uterine EHG signals.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4 (Discussion, final paragraph)] The admitted limitation that the electrode matrix is 'less than 10cm x 10cm' and 'does not allow for a thorough investigation of the mechanotransduction process associated with long-distance diffusion' directly undermines the paper's central claim that the best features for detecting mechanotransduction shifts are H2(Str), R2(PR), and ICOH(Str). Since the simulated EHG signals are also generated with the same small electrode matrix, the feature rankings for the EDM group may reflect only local diffusion artifacts rather than true long-distance mechanotransduction. The authors should either reframe the claim to state that the identified features are sensitive to the modeled local mechanotransduction parameters in the current electrode configuration, or they should simulate with a larger electrode array that can capture long-distance synchronization.
  2. [Section 2.6.1 and Section 3 (Tables 2-5)] The Student's test mentioned in Section 2.6.1 is never reported with p-values, confidence intervals, effect sizes, or multiple-comparison corrections. The slope values in Tables 2-5, many of which are on the order of 0.001-0.01 after normalization to the first parameter value, are therefore not shown to be statistically distinguishable from noise. This is load-bearing because the rankings in Table 6 are based entirely on the magnitudes of these slopes. The authors should provide the test statistics, p-values, or bootstrap confidence intervals for the slopes, and they should account for the fact that 24 features are compared across six parameter scenarios.
  3. [Section 2.6.2 and Table 6] The FW_h2 filter was changed from the real-EHG band of 0.1-0.3 Hz to 0.1-0.7 Hz for the simulated EHG signals, based on the simulated signals' PSD. This makes the FW_h2 features in the simulated-signal rankings (Table 6, columns 2-3) not directly comparable to the FW_h2 features in the real-EHG rankings (columns 4-5). The claim that FW_h2 'appears to be important in characterizing the mechanotransduction process and uterine synchronization' in both real and simulated signals is therefore confounded by the filter adaptation. The authors should either justify the band choice with a sensitivity analysis or restrict the comparison to features computed with the same filter.
  4. [Section 2.3 and Section 4] The external validity of the simulated feature rankings is asserted rather than demonstrated. The model encodes the assumption that lower tissue resistance increases diffusion-based synchronization, so the observed decrease of H2 with increasing resistance (Figure 6) is a consistency check of the model, not an independent validation of the feature ranking. The comparison with real-EHG rankings in Table 6 is qualitative, and no agreement metric (e.g., overlap proportion, rank correlation, permutation test) is provided. The authors should state this limitation explicitly and quantify the agreement between simulated and real rankings if they wish to claim that the simulated results can identify features useful for real EHG monitoring.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.4] In the description of FW_h2, the text says 'filtering the Electrogastrogram (EHG) signal'; this should be 'electrohysterogram' to match the EHG abbreviation.
  2. [Section 2.4] The equation for PageRank is referenced as Equation (7), but the displayed equation number is missing and the text jumps from Equation (6) to Equation (8).
  3. [Section 3] The text says 'student test' in Section 2.6.1 but the correct term is 'Student's t-test'; also, the caption of Figure 6 says 'significative differences' which should be 'significant differences'.
  4. [Section 3, Table 6] The caption states that features indicated in blue are selected by Fscore, but no blue color appears in the printed table; the table should be formatted so that this annotation is visible.
  5. [References] References [21] and [28] appear to be the same article (Verwaerde et al., 'Statistical shape analysis of gravid uteri...') but are cited as two distinct references; this should be corrected.
  6. [Section 2.4] The abbreviation FW_h2 is defined as 'Filtered Windowed H2' but the exact formula or algorithmic steps for the filtering and windowing are not given; since the paper modifies the filter band, the definition should be more explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; the sensitivity ranking is self-contained, with acknowledged external-validity limitations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a parameter-sweep sensitivity analysis on simulated EHG signals. Signals are generated by a published electromechanical uterine model; connectivity and graph features are computed independently from those signals; and feature rankings are based on slopes of feature-versus-parameter curves. No parameter is fitted to the ranking, no target label is used to select features, and the 'best features' claim is a descriptive ordering of computed sensitivities. The authors' stated expectation that synchronization increases with mechanotransduction parameters is a sanity-check hypothesis, not an input that forces the slopes. The comparison to real-EHG feature selections from prior work by the same group is contextual and explicitly shows differences, so it does not load-bearingly import the conclusion. The Discussion's admission that the 4x4 electrode grid (less than 10 cm) does not fully capture mechanotransduction is a limitation on external validity, not a circular reduction. The missing p-values are a statistical-reporting concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters fitted to a target, but relies on a number of hand-chosen model parameter ranges and an ad hoc frequency band for FW_h2. The main external input is the untested fidelity of the uterine simulation model.

free parameters (8)
  • Tissue resistance range (ED group) = 24 to 80, step 4, default 40
    Varies electrical diffusion in group 1; from Section 2.6.1.
  • Lambda_sig = {3,6,...,27}
    Sigmoid slope governing stretch-sensitive channel opening; Table 1.
  • Beta_sig = 1 to 10
    SSC sigmoid shift; Table 1.
  • SACCH_nbmax = {20,...,200}
    Number of SSC per cell; Table 1.
  • Current_Na_etirement (ICES_Na) = {0.005,...,0.13}
    Sodium SSC ionic current; Table 1.
  • SACCH_current (ICES_Ca) = {0.0007,...,0.017}
    Calcium SSC ionic current; Table 1.
  • FW_h2 filter band = 0.1-0.7 Hz
    Adjusted from real EHG FWL (0.1-0.3 Hz) based on PSD of simulated signals; Section 2.6.2.
  • Reference normalization = First parameter value set to 1
    Feature values divided by the reference (first) value, which affects slope magnitudes and ranking; Section 3.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The multiscale electromechanical uterine model (Yochum et al. [26], Verwaerde et al. [21]) accurately reproduces uterine electrical activity relevant to synchronization.
    Used to generate all simulated EHG signals; Section 2.3.
  • domain assumption Increasing tissue resistance decreases electrical diffusion, and increasing the mechanotransduction parameters increases synchronization.
    Stated in Section 2.6.1 as expectations from the model and previous work.
  • standard math Standard definitions of connectivity (H2, R2, ICOH) and graph metrics (Str, CC, Eff, PR, BC) are valid for quantifying uterine synchronization.
    Equations 1-8; based on cited prior literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electrical and Mechanical Modeling of Uterine Contractions Analysis Using Connectivity Methods and Graph Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5QU7MIT4

@misc{pith2026250110544,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electrical and Mechanical Modeling of Uterine Contractions Analysis Using Connectivity Methods and Graph Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5QU7MIT4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10544}
}
read the original abstract

Premature delivery is a leading cause of fetal death and morbidity, making the prediction and treatment of preterm contractions critical. The electrohysterographic (EHG) signal measures the electrical activity controlling uterine contraction. Analyzing EHG features can provide valuable insights for labor detection. In this paper, we propose a framework using simulated EHG signals to identify features sensitive to uterine connectivity. We focus on EHG signal propagation during delivery, recorded by multiple electrodes. Simulated EHG signals were generated using electrical diffusion (ED) and mechanotransduction (EDM) to identify which connectivity methods and graph parameters best represent uterine synchronization. The signals were simulated in two scenarios: using only ED by modifying tissue resistance, and using both ED and EDM by varying mechanotransduction model parameters. A matrix of 16 surface electrodes was used for the simulations. Our results show that a simplified electromechanical model can monitor uterine synchronization. Feature selection using Fscore on real and simulated EHG signals highlighted that the best features for detecting mechanotransduction shifts were H2 alone or combined with Str, R2(PR), and ICOH(Str). The best features for detecting electrical diffusion shifts were H2, Eff, PR, and BC.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Pregnancy - premature labour

    D. of H. & H. Services, “Pregnancy - premature labour.” Accessed: Dec. 18,

    work page

  2. [2]

    Global, regional, and national causes of under-5 mortality in 2000-15: an updated systematic analysis with implications for the Sustainable Development Goals,

    L. Liu, S Oza, D Hogan, Y Chu, J Perin, J Zhu, J Lawn, S Cousens, C Mathers, R Black., “Global, regional, and national causes of under-5 mortality in 2000-15: an updated systematic analysis with implications for the Sustainable Development Goals,” Lancet, vol. 388, no. 10063, pp. 3027–3035, Dec. 2016, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31593-8

    work page doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31593-8

  3. [3]

    The global epidemiology of preterm birth,

    J. P. Vogel, S. Chawanpaiboon, A.-B. Moller, K. Watananirun, M. Bonet, and P. Lumbiganon, “The global epidemiology of preterm birth,” Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, vol. 52, pp. 3–12, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2018.04.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2018.04.003 2018

  4. [4]

    National, regional, and global estimates of preterm birth in 2020, with trends from 2010: a systematic analysis,

    E. O. Ohuma, E Ohuma, A Moller, E Bradley, S Chakwera, A Lewin., “National, regional, and global estimates of preterm birth in 2020, with trends from 2010: a systematic analysis,” Lancet, vol. 402, no. 10409, pp. 1261–1271, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00878-4

    doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(23)00878-4 2020

  5. [5]

    Preterm and low birth weight

    “Preterm and low birth weight.” Accessed: Dec. 12, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.who.int/teams/maternal- newborn-child-adolescent-health-and- ageing/newborn-health/preterm-and-low- birth-weight

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Prediction of Preterm Labor from the Electrohysterogram Signals Based on Different Gestational Weeks,

    S. Mohammadi Far, M. Beiramvand, M. Shahbakhti, and P. Augustyniak, “Prediction of Preterm Labor from the Electrohysterogram Signals Based on Different Gestational Weeks,” Sensors (Basel), vol. 23, no. 13, p. 5965, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.3390/s23135965

    work page doi:10.3390/s23135965 2023

  7. [7]

    The epidemiology, etiology, and costs of preterm birth,

    H. A. Frey and M. A. Klebanoff, “The epidemiology, etiology, and costs of preterm birth,” Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 68– 73, Apr. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.siny.2015.12.011

    doi:10.1016/j.siny.2015.12.011 2016

  8. [8]

    Optimization of Imminent Labor Prediction Systems in Women with Threatened Preterm Labor Based on Electrohysterography,

    G. Prats-Boluda, J Pastor-Tronch, J Garcia-Casado, R Monfort-Ortíz, A Marín, V Diago, A Prats, Y Ye-Lin, “Optimization of Imminent Labor Prediction Systems in Women with Threatened Preterm Labor Based on Electrohysterography,” Sensors (Basel), vol. 21, no. 7, p. 2496, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.3390/s21072496

    work page doi:10.3390/s21072496 2021

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Uterine synchronization analysis during pregnancy and labor using graph theory, classification based on machine learning,

    K. Bader El Dine, “Uterine synchronization analysis during pregnancy and labor using graph theory, classification based on machine learning,” These de doctorat, Compiègne, 2022. Accessed: Feb. 08,

    2022

  2. [11]

    Available: https://www.theses.fr/2022COMP2680

    [Online]. Available: https://www.theses.fr/2022COMP2680

  3. [12]

    Mechanotransduction mechanisms for coordinating uterine contractions in human labor,

    R. C. Young, “Mechanotransduction mechanisms for coordinating uterine contractions in human labor,” Reproduction, vol. 152, no. 2, pp. R51– R61, Aug. 2016, doi: 10.1530/REP-16- 0156

    2016 doi

  4. [13]

    Uterine electromyography: A critical review,

    D. Devedeux, C. Marque, S. Mansour, G. Germain, and J. Duchêne, “Uterine electromyography: A critical review,” American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, vol. 169, no. 6, pp. 1636– 1653, Dec. 1993, doi: 10.1016/0002- 9378(93)90456-S

    1993 doi

  5. [14]

    Synchronization study of electrohysterography for discrimination of imminent delivery in pregnant women with threatened preterm labor,

    W. Li, Y. Yang, G. Li, F. Nieto-del- Amor, G. Prats-Boluda, J. Garcia- Casado, Y. Ye-Lin, D. Hao, “Synchronization study of electrohysterography for discrimination of imminent delivery in pregnant women with threatened preterm labor,” Computers in Biology and Medicine, vol. 18...

    2025

  6. [15]

    Better pregnancy monitoring using nonlinear correlation analysis of external uterine electromyography,

    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 Trans Biomed Eng, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 1160–1166, Apr. 2013, doi: 10.1109/TBME.2012.2229279

    2013

  7. [16]

    Classification of pregnancy and labor contractions using a graph theory based analysis,

    N. Nader, M Hassan, W Falou, A Diab, S Al-Omar, M Khalil, C Marque, “Classification of pregnancy and labor contractions using a graph theory based analysis,” Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc, vol. 2015, pp. 2876–2879, Aug. 2015, doi: 10.1109/EMBC.2015.7318992

    2015

  8. [17]

    Inter-electrode delay estimators for electrohysterographic propagation analysis,

    C. Rabotti, M. Mischi, J. van Laar, G. Oei, and J. Bergmans, “Inter-electrode delay estimators for electrohysterographic propagation analysis,” Physiological measurement, vol. 30, pp. 745–61, Jul. 2009, doi: 10.1088/0967-3334/30/8/002

    2009 doi

  9. [18]

    Pregnancy Labor classification using neural network based analysis,

    K. B. el Dine, C. Marque, N. Nader, W. Falou, and M. Khalil, “Pregnancy Labor classification using neural network based analysis,” in 2019 Fifth International Conference on Advances in Biomedical Engineering (ICABME), Oct. 2019, pp. 1–

    2019

  10. [19]

    Pregnancy Monitoring using graph theory based analysis,

    N. Nader, C. Marque, W. El Falou, A. Diab, and M. Khalil, “Pregnancy Monitoring using graph theory based analysis,” Sep. 2015. doi: 10.1109/ICABME.2015.7323254. 16

    2015

  11. [20]

    Optimizing Uterine Synchronization Analysis in Pregnancy and Labor Through Window Selection and Node Optimization,

    K. Bader El Dine, N. Nader, M. Khalil, and C. Marque, “Optimizing Uterine Synchronization Analysis in Pregnancy and Labor Through Window Selection and Node Optimization,” IRBM, vol. 45, no. 4, p. 100843, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.irbm.2024.100843

    2024

  12. [21]

    doi: 10.1109/ICABME47164.2019.8940167

    2019

  13. [22]

    Graph analysis of uterine networks using EHG source connectivity,

    N. Nader, S Zahran, C Marque, M Hassan, M Yochum, W Falou, M Khalil, “Graph analysis of uterine networks using EHG source connectivity,” in 2017 Fourth International Conference on Advances in Biomedical Engineering (ICABME), Oct. 2017, pp. 1–4. doi: 10.1109/ICABME.2017.8167554

    2017

  14. [23]

    A computational model of excitation and contraction in uterine myocytes from the pregnant rat,

    C. P. Testrow, A. V. Holden, A. Shmygol, and H. Zhang, “A computational model of excitation and contraction in uterine myocytes from the pregnant rat,” Sci Rep, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 9159, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-27069-x

    2018 doi

  15. [25]

    Towards a computational reconstruction of the electrodynamics of premature and full term human labour,

    O. Aslanidi, J. Atia, A.P. Benson, H.A. van den Berg, A.M. Blanks, C. Choi “Towards a computational reconstruction of the electrodynamics of premature and full term human labour,” Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, vol. 107, no. 1, pp. 183–92, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.p...

    2011 doi

  16. [26]

    Multi-scale and multi-physics model of the uterine smooth muscle with mechanotransduction,

    M. Yochum, J. Laforêt, and C. Marque, “Multi-scale and multi-physics model of the uterine smooth muscle with mechanotransduction,” Comput Biol Med, vol. 93, pp. 17–30, Feb. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2017.12.001

    2018 doi

  17. [27]

    Mathematical model of excitation- contraction in a uterine smooth muscle cell,

    L. Bursztyn, O. Eytan, A. J. Jaffa, and D. Elad, “Mathematical model of excitation- contraction in a uterine smooth muscle cell,” Am J Physiol Cell Physiol, vol. 292, no. 5, pp. C1816-1829, May 2007, doi: 10.1152/ajpcell.00478.2006

    2007

  18. [28]

    A continuum model for excitation–contraction of smooth muscle under finite deformations,

    B. Sharifimajd and J. Stålhand, “A continuum model for excitation–contraction of smooth muscle under finite deformations,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 355, pp. 1–9, 2014

    2014

  19. [29]

    Abdominal EHG on a 4 by 4 grid: mapping and presenting the propagation of uterine contractions,

    B. Karlsson, 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,” 11th Mediterranean Conference on Medical and Biomedical Engineering and Computing 2007, p. 139, 2007

    2007

  20. [30]

    Sensitivity analysis of HD- sEMG amplitude descriptors relative to grid parameter variations of a cylindrical multilayered muscle model,

    V. Carriou, J. Laforet, S. Boudaoud, and M. A. Harrach, “Sensitivity analysis of HD- sEMG amplitude descriptors relative to grid parameter variations of a cylindrical multilayered muscle model,” Biomed. Phys. Eng. Express, vol. 2, no. 6, p. 064001, Dec. 2016, doi: 10.1088/2057...

    2016 doi

  21. [31]

    Statistical shape analysis of gravid uteri throughout pregnancy by a ray description technique,

    J. Verwaerde, J. Laforet, C. Marque, and A. Rassineux, “Statistical shape analysis of gravid uteri throughout pregnancy by a ray description technique,” Med Biol Eng Comput, vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 2165–2183, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11517-021- 02402-1

    2021 doi

  22. [32]

    Electromyographic observations on the human uterus during labour,

    G. M. Wolfs and M. van Leeuwen, “Electromyographic observations on the human uterus during labour,” Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl, vol. 90, pp. 1–61, 1979, doi: 10.3109/00016347909156375

    1979 doi

  23. [33]

    Comparison of two estimators of time-frequency interdependencies between nonstationary signals: application to epileptic EEG,

    K. Ansari-Asl, F. Wendling, J. J. Bellanger, and L. Senhadji, “Comparison of two estimators of time-frequency interdependencies between nonstationary signals: application to epileptic EEG,” Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc, vol. 2006, pp. 263–266, 2004, doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.2004.1403142

    2006 arXiv

  24. [34]

    Selection algorithm for parameters to characterize uterine EHG signals for the detection of preterm labor,

    D. Alamedine, A. Diab, C. Muszynski, B. Karlsson, M. Khalil, and C. Marque, “Selection algorithm for parameters to characterize uterine EHG signals for the detection of preterm labor,” Signal, Image and Video Processing, vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 1169–1178, 2014, doi: 10.1007/s11760-...

    2014 doi

  25. [35]

    Complex network measures of brain connectivity: Uses and interpretations,

    M. Rubinov and O. Sporns, “Complex network measures of brain connectivity: Uses and interpretations,” NeuroImage, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 1059–1069, Sep. 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.003

    2010 doi

  26. [36]

    Forecasting Drought Using Multilayer Perceptron Artificial Neural Network Model,

    Z. Ali, I Hussain, M Faisal, H Nazir, T Hussain, M Shad, A Shoukry, S Gani, “Forecasting Drought Using Multilayer Perceptron Artificial Neural Network Model,” Advances in Meteorology, vol. 17 2017, p. e5681308, May 2017, doi: 10.1155/2017/5681308

    2017 doi

  27. [37]

    Neuronal Graphs: A Graph Theory Primer for Microscopic, Functional Networks of Neurons Recorded by Calcium Imaging,

    C. J. Nelson and S. Bonner, “Neuronal Graphs: A Graph Theory Primer for Microscopic, Functional Networks of Neurons Recorded by Calcium Imaging,” Front Neural Circuits, vol. 15, p. 662882, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.3389/fncir.2021.662882

    2021

  28. [38]

    ‘Betweenness Centrality’ as an Indicator of the ‘Interdisciplinarity’ of Scientific Journals,

    L. Leydesdorff, “‘Betweenness Centrality’ as an Indicator of the ‘Interdisciplinarity’ of Scientific Journals,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 58, Jul. 2007, doi: 10.1002/asi.20614

    2007 doi

  29. [39]

    Complex networks: Structure and dynamics,

    S. Boccaletti, V. Latora, Y. Moreno, M. Chavez, and D.-U. Hwang, “Complex networks: Structure and dynamics,” Physics Reports, vol. 424, no. 4, pp. 175– 308, Feb. 2006, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.10.009

    2006 doi

  30. [40]

    Feature Selection Based F-Score and ACO Algorithm in Support Vector Machine,

    S. Ding, “Feature Selection Based F-Score and ACO Algorithm in Support Vector Machine,” Knowledge Acquisition and Modeling, International Symposium on, vol. 1, pp. 19–23, Jan. 2009, doi: 10.1109/KAM.2009.137

    2009 doi

  31. [41]

    Mathematical modeling of electrical activity of uterine muscle cells,

    S. Rihana, J. Terrien, G. Germain, and C. Marque, “Mathematical modeling of electrical activity of uterine muscle cells,” Med Biol Eng Comput, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 665–675, Jun. 2009, doi: 10.1007/s11517- 009-0433-4

    2009 doi

  32. [42]

    A Set of Measures of Centrality Based on Betweenness,

    L. Freeman, “A Set of Measures of Centrality Based on Betweenness,” Sociometry, vol. 40, pp. 35–41, Mar. 1977, doi: 10.2307/3033543

    1977 doi

  33. [43]

    The delta- betweenness centrality,

    A. Plutov and M. Segal, “The delta- betweenness centrality,” Sep. 2013, pp. 3376–3380. doi: 10.1109/PIMRC.2013.6666731

    2013

  34. [44]

    Uterine Synchronization Analysis During Pregnancy and Labor Using Graph Theory, Classification Based on Neural Network and Deep Learning,

    K. B. El Dine, N. Nader, M. Khalil, and C. Marque, “Uterine Synchronization Analysis During Pregnancy and Labor Using Graph Theory, Classification Based on Neural Network and Deep Learning,” IRBM, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 333–339, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.irbm.2021.09.002

    2022 doi

  35. [45]

    Synchronization between EMG at Different Uterine Locations Investigated Using Time-Frequency Ridge Reconstruction: Comparison of Pregnancy and Labor Contractions,

    A. Alexandersson, T. Steingrimsdottir, J. Terrien, C. Marque, and B. Karlsson, “Synchronization between EMG at Different Uterine Locations Investigated Using Time-Frequency Ridge Reconstruction: Comparison of Pregnancy and Labor Contractions,” Scientific Data, vol. 2, p. 15001...

    2010 doi

  36. [46]

    Effect of filtering on the classification rate of nonlinear analysis methods applied to uterine EMG signals,

    A. Diab, O. Falou, M. Hassan, B. Karlsson, and C. Marque, “Effect of filtering on the classification rate of nonlinear analysis methods applied to uterine EMG signals,” Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc, vol. 2015, pp. 4182–4185, Jan. 2015, doi: 10.1109/embc.2015.7319316

    2015

  37. [48]

    Noninvasive uterine electromyography for prediction of preterm delivery,

    M. Lucovnik, W Maner, L Chambliss, R Blumrick, J Balducci, Z Novak-Antolic, R Garfield, “Noninvasive uterine electromyography for prediction of preterm delivery,” Am J Obstet Gynecol, vol. 204, no. 3, p. 228.e1–10, Mar. 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.09.024

    2011 doi

  38. [2024]

    Available: http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/h ealthyliving/pregnancy-premature-labour 15

    [Online]. Available: http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/h ealthyliving/pregnancy-premature-labour 15

Pith tools

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