| Literature DB >> 26361582 |
Padmavathi Kora1, Sri Ramakrishna Kalva2.
Abstract
Abnormal cardiac beat identification is a key process in the detection of heart diseases. Our present study describes a procedure for the detection of left and right bundle branch block (LBBB and RBBB) Electrocardiogram (ECG) patterns. The electrical impulses that control the cardiac beat face difficulty in moving inside the heart. This problem is termed as bundle branch block (BBB). BBB makes it harder for the heart to pump blood effectively through the heart circulatory system. ECG feature extraction is a key process in detecting heart ailments. Our present study comes up with a hybrid method combining two heuristic optimization methods: Bacterial Forging Optimization (BFO) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) for the feature selection of ECG signals. One of the major controlling forces of BFO algorithm is the chemotactic movement of a bacterium that models a test solution. The chemotaxis process of the BFO depends on random search directions which may lead to a delay in achieving the global optimum solution. The hybrid technique: Bacterial Forging-Particle Swarm Optimization (BFPSO) incorporates the concepts from BFO and PSO and it creates individuals in a new generation. This BFPSO method performs local search through the chemotactic movement of BFO and the global search over the entire search domain is accomplished by a PSO operator. The BFPSO feature values are given as the input for the Levenberg-Marquardt Neural Network classifier.Entities:
Keywords: BFO; BFPSO; Bundle branch block; LM NN classifier; PSO
Year: 2015 PMID: 26361582 PMCID: PMC4559560 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-015-1240-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Fig. 1Normal beat
Fig. 2Left bundle branch block
Fig. 3Right bundle branch block
Fig. 4ECG classification flow diagram
MIT-BIH record numbers
| Record | NB | LBBB | RBBB |
|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | 2237 | 0 | 0 |
| 101 | 1858 | 0 | 0 |
| 103 | 2080 | 0 | 0 |
| 106 | 1505 | 0 | 0 |
| 109 | 0 | 2490 | 0 |
| 111 | 0 | 2121 | 0 |
| 118 | 0 | 0 | 2164 |
| 123 | 1513 | 0 | 0 |
| 124 | 0 | 0 | 1529 |
| 207 | 0 | 1457 | 85 |
Fig. 5ECG Baseline Wander removal. Up signal original signal. Down signal baseline Wander removed signal
Fig. 6ECG R peak detection
Fig. 7ECG beat segmentation
Fig. 8PSO flowchart
Fig. 9BFO flow chart
Fig. 10BFPSO flow chart
Classification with KNN classifier
| Classifier | Sensi (%) | Speci (%) | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| PSO+KNN | 52.5 | 53.2 | 65.1 |
| GA+KNN | 63.5 | 67.86 | 64.55 |
| BFO+KNN | 53.5 | 52.2 | 53.22 |
| BFPSO+KNN | 52.35 | 53.9 | 52.17 |
Classification with SVM classifier
| Classifier | Sensi (%) | Speci (%) | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| PSO+SVM | 71.0 | 73.13 | 70.12 |
| GA+SVM | 87.87 | 82.85 | 84.62 |
| BFO+SVM | 76.2 | 75.47 | 72.13 |
| BFPSO+SVM | 75.5 | 76.9 | 76.74 |
Classification with SCG NN classifier
| Classifier | Sensi (%) | Speci (%) | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| PSO+SCG NN | 86.1 | 85.3 | 86.0 |
| GA+SCG NN | 67.87 | 82.85 | 84.62 |
| BFO+SCG NN | 88.2 | 87.2 | 87.9 |
| BFPSO+SCG NN | 84.42 | 82.28 | 83.13 |
Classification with LM NN classifier
| Classifier | Sensi (%) | Speci (%) | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| BFO+LM NN | 93.34.2 | 92.2 | 93.9 |
| PSO+LM NN | 91.2 | 89.2 | 80.9 |
| GA+ LM NN | 95.4 | 96.2 | 96.5 |
| BFPSO+LM NN | 98.97 | 98.7 | 98.1 |
Overall classification accuracy with BFPSO features
| Classifier | LBBB (%) | RBBB (%) | Normal (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| KNN | 55.2 | 54.2 | 52.17 |
| SVM | 76.1 | 75.3 | 76.74 |
| SCG NN | 84.42 | 82.28 | 83.13 |
| LM NN | 98.2 | 98.15 | 98.1 |
Fig. 11Neural network training with trainlm
Fig. 12Neural network training performance plot
Fig. 13Performance comparison of different classifiers with BFPSO features