| Literature DB >> 26925158 |
Yi-Li Tseng1, Keng-Sheng Lin2, Fu-Shan Jaw3.
Abstract
An automatic method is presented for detecting myocardial ischemia, which can be considered as the early symptom of acute coronary events. Myocardial ischemia commonly manifests as ST- and T-wave changes on ECG signals. The methods in this study are proposed to detect abnormal ECG beats using knowledge-based features and classification methods. A novel classification method, sparse representation-based classification (SRC), is involved to improve the performance of the existing algorithms. A comparison was made between two classification methods, SRC and support-vector machine (SVM), using rule-based vectors as input feature space. The two methods are proposed with quantitative evaluation to validate their performances. The results of SRC method encompassed with rule-based features demonstrate higher sensitivity than that of SVM. However, the specificity and precision are a trade-off. Moreover, SRC method is less dependent on the selection of rule-based features and can achieve high performance using fewer features. The overall performances of the two methods proposed in this study are better than the previous methods.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26925158 PMCID: PMC4746342 DOI: 10.1155/2016/9460375
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Figure 1Block diagram of ECG processing for ischemia detection.
Figure 2Features of each ECG beat.
Figure 3The training and testing datasets for classification.
Figure 4Sensitivity and specificity of the SVM and SRC methods using varying numbers of features.
Comparison of the support vector machine (SVM) and sparse representation-based classification (SRC) methods.
| Sensitivity | Specificity | Precision | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Support vector machine (SVM) | 94.81% | 99.51% | 99.9% |
|
| |||
| Sparse representation-based classification (SRC) | 96.62% | 96.62% | 99.49% |
Comparison of the classification results from previous studies for ischemic beat detection.
| Method | Sensitivity (%) |
|---|---|
| RMS difference series [ | 85 |
| Rule-mining based [ | 87 |
| Back propagation network [ | 89 |
| Artificial neural networks (ANN) [ | 90 |
| Principal components analysis and neural networks [ | 90 |
| Genetic algorithm and multicriteria [ | 91 |
| Fuzzy expert system [ | 91 |
| SVM [ | 92 |
| Rule-based [ | 92 |
| Knowledge-based [ | 94 |
| Kernel density estimation (KDE) [ | 94 |
| SVM [ | 94 |
| SVM (this work) | 94.81% |
| Sparse representation-based classification (SRC) (this work) | 96.62% |