Foetal Health Prediction using Random Forest and Support Vector Machine
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52783/jns.v14.2890Keywords:
Foetal health prediction, Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, machine learning, cardiotocographyAbstract
In order to identify any potential hazards to the foetus and take the necessary precautions to guarantee a healthy birth, foetal health prediction is a crucial component of maternal healthcare. In this paper, we evaluate the application of Random Forest and Support Vector Machine as machine learning algorithms for predicting foetal health based on various foetal health data. 2,114 records from cardiotocography (CTG) assessments of foetal heart rate and uterine contractions make up the dataset used in this investigation. Using a variety of performance indicators, including accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score, we assess the abilities of Random Forest and Support Vector Machine to predict foetal health. In order to diagnose and treat foetuses who may have health issues early on, it is essential to do research into foetal health prediction. In this study, we examine the performance of Support Vector Machine and Random Forest, two well-known machine learning algorithms, at predicting foetal health. To train and evaluate our models, we used the CTG dataset, which includes foetal heart rate recordings. Our findings show that both algorithms are highly accurate at predicting foetal health, with Random Forest slightly outperforming Support Vector Machine in this regard. Furthermore, our research demonstrates that in terms of precision, recall, and F1-score, the Random Forest approach surpasses the Support Vector Machine technique. Based on our research, Random Forest might be a good algorithm for predicting foetal health in clinical situations.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Y. Li, X. Li, Y. Zhou, J. Li, & Q. Li. (2019). Foetal Health Prediction Based on Random Forest Algorithm. Journal of Healthcare Engineering, 2019, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/8269207
J. Wang, X. Yang, Q. Zhang, & S. Wang. (2020). Foetal Health Prediction Using Support Vector Machine. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Electrical, Communication and Computer Engineering (ICECCE 2020), 149-154. https://doi.org/10.1145/3443240.3443284
R. Nair, A. Gupta, A. Joshi, & D. Datta. (2018). A Comparative Analysis of Random Forest and Support Vector Machine for Foetal Health Prediction. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics (ICACCI 2018), 1435-1440. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACCI.2018.8554803
S. Sahoo, S. Behera, & S. Panda. (2021). Foetal Health Prediction Using Random Forest and Support Vector Machine: A Comparative Study. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Sustainable Systems (ICISS 2021), 227-232. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16- 3929-1_29
Sedgh G.,Singh S., Hussain R. Intended and unintended pregnancies worldwide in 2012 and recent trends. Studies in Family Planning . 2014;45(3):301–314. doi: 10.1111/j.1728- 4465.2014.00393.x. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Murray C. J. Global, regional, and national age-sex specific all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 240 causes of death, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2013. Lancet . 2015;385(9963):117–171. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61682-2. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
World Health Organization. Maternal mortality: fact sheet . 2016. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs348/en/
National Institutes of Health. What are some common complications of pregnancy? US Department of Health and Human Services; https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/pregnancy/conditioni nfo/Pages/complications.aspx . [Google Scholar]
Office on Women’s Health. Pregnancy Complications . US Department of Health and Human Services; https://www.womenshealth.gov/pregnancy/youre-pregnant- nowwhat/pregnancy-complications . [Google Scholar]
Grivell R. M., Gillian Z. A., Gyte M. L., Devane D. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . 9. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2015. Antenatal cardiotocography for foetal assessment; pp. 1–57. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Nelson-Piercy C., Williamson C. Medical disorders in pregnancy. In: Chamberlain G., Steer P., editors. Turnbull’s Obstetrics . 3rd Edition. Edinburgh: Churchill Liingstone; 2001. pp. 275–297. [Google Scholar]
Lloyd C. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. In: Fraser D. M., Cooper M. A., editors. Myles Textbook for Midwives . 14th Edition. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2003. pp. 357–371. [Google Scholar]
Lloyd C. Common medical disorders associated with pregnancy. In: Fraser D. M., Cooper M. A., editors. Myles Textbook for Midwives . 14th Edition. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2003. pp. 321–355. [Google Scholar]
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Diabetes in pregnancy: management of diabetes and its complications from preconception to the postnatal period . London: 2008. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Gribbin C., Thornton J. Critical evaluation of foetal assessment methods. In: James D. K., Steer P. J., Weiner C. P., editors. High Risk Pregnancy Management Options . Elsevier; 2006. [Google Scholar]
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

