| Literature DB >> 28874683 |
Gabriel Garcia1, Gladston Moreira2, David Menotti3, Eduardo Luz4.
Abstract
Classifying arrhythmias can be a tough task for a human being and automating this task is highly desirable. Nevertheless fully automatic arrhythmia classification through Electrocardiogram (ECG) signals is a challenging task when the inter-patient paradigm is considered. For the inter-patient paradigm, classifiers are evaluated on signals of unknown subjects, resembling the real world scenario. In this work, we explore a novel ECG representation based on vectorcardiogram (VCG), called temporal vectorcardiogram (TVCG), along with a complex network for feature extraction. We also fine-tune the SVM classifier and perform feature selection with a particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm. Results for the inter-patient paradigm show that the proposed method achieves the results comparable to state-of-the-art in MIT-BIH database (53% of Positive predictive (+P) for the Supraventricular ectopic beat (S) class and 87.3% of Sensitivity (Se) for the Ventricular ectopic beat (V) class) that TVCG is a richer representation of the heartbeat and that it could be useful for problems involving the cardiac signal and pattern recognition.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28874683 PMCID: PMC5585360 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-09837-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Two principal components of raw ECG heartbeats from patients of MIT-BIH. Each individual is plotted in one color. Adapted[4].
Methods which used the Intra-patient paradigm.
| Work | # Classes | Feature set | Classifier | Effectiveness |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cristov & Bortonal, 2004[ | 2 | Heartbeat-Intervals, VCG | NN |
|
| Özbay | 10 | Raw-wave | MLP, Fuzzy Cluster, FCNN |
|
| Bortolan | 2 | VCG and Morphological hyperbox + GA | Fuzzy Clustering |
|
| Ubeyli, 2007[ | 4 | DWT | SVM, ECOC |
|
| Yu & Chen, 2007[ | 5 | ICA, RR-interval | PNN |
|
| Yu & Chen, 2007[ | 6 | Wavelet (statistics), RR-interval | PNN |
|
| Minhas & Arif, 2008[ | 6 | Wavelet, RR-interval, PCA | kNN |
|
| Asl | 6 | HVR, GDA | SVM |
|
| Chen | 6 | RR-intervals | SVN, NN |
|
| Mert | 6 | RR-intervals, HOS, | Bagged Decision Tree |
|
| 2nd order LPC coeff. | ||||
| Alickovic & Subasi, 2015[ | 5 | autoregressive (AR) modeling | SVM, MLP, RBF, kNN |
|
| Li | 6 | WPD | GA-BPNN |
|
Neural Network (NN); Principal Component Analysis (PCA); Generalized Discriminant Analyses(GDA); Error correcting output codes (ECOC); Independent Component Analysis (ICA); Probabilistic neural Network (PNN); Continues Wavelet Transform (CWT); Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT); Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT); Higher order statistics (HOS); Linear Discriminants (LD); wavelet packet decomposition (WPD). Abbreviations: Acc: Accuracy.
Methods which used the Inter-patient paradigm.
| Work | Feature set | Classifier | Effectiveness |
|---|---|---|---|
| de Chazal | ECG-Intervals, Morphological | Weighted LD |
|
| Soria & Martinez, 2009[ | RR-Intervals, VCG, morphological + FFS | Weighted LD |
|
| Llamedo & Martinez, 2011[ | Wavelet, VCG + SFFS | Weighted LD |
|
| Mar | Temporal Features, Morphological, statistical features + SFFS | Weighted LD MLP |
|
| Ye | Morphological, Wavelet, RR interval, ICA, PCA | SVM |
|
| Lin & Yang, 2014[ | normalized RR-interval morphological features | weighted LD |
|
| Huang | Random projection RR-intervals | Ensemble of SVM |
|
Artificial Neural Network (ANN); Principal Component Analysis (PCA); Floating Feature Selection (FFS); Independent Component Analysis (ICA); Back Propagation Neural Network (BPNN); Linear Discriminants (LD); Sequential forward floating search (SFFS); *Authors optimize their result for 3 classes (N), (S), (V); **Where confusion matrix was not given, some values could not be computed. Abbreviations: (N): Normal heartbeat; (S): Supraventricular ectopic heartbeat; (V): Ventricular ectopic heartbeat; Acc: Accuracy; +P: Positive predictive; Se: Sensitivity.
Records used and number of representatives of each class for each of the partitions.
| Partition | Registers | Class (N) | Class (S) | Class (V) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DS1 | 101, 106, 108, 109, 112, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 122, 124, 201, 203, 205, 207, 208, 209, 215, 220, 223, 230 | 45543 | 782 | 3469 |
| DS11 | 101, 106, 108, 109, 114, 115, 116, 119, 122, 209, 223 | 22249 | 474 | 1615 |
| DS12 | 112, 118, 124, 201, 203, 205, 207, 208, 215, 220, 230 | 23294 | 308 | 1854 |
| DS2 | 100, 103, 105, 11, 113, 117, 121, 123, 200, 202, 210, 212, 213, 214, 219, 221, 222, 228, 231, 232, 233, 234 | 44049 | 1808 | 3143 |
| Total | 89592 | 2590 | 6612 |
Figure 4Calculations for metric evaluations. (a), (b), and (c) highlight the calculation of metrics for V, S, and N, respectively. Source[2]. Abbreviations: Acc: Accuracy; F: Fusion heartbeat group (superclass); FPR: False positive rate; N: Normal heartbeat group (superclass); +P: Positive predictivity; Q: Unknown heartbeat group (superclass); Se: Sensitivity; Sp: Specificity; S: Supraventricular ectopic heartbeat group (superclass); V: Ventricular ectopic heartbeat group (superclass); TN: True negative; and TP: True positive.
Figure 2Proposed method flow.
Figure 3(a) Lead A (MLII); (b) Lead B (V1); (c) VCG; (d) TVCG. Ten heartbeats and mean heartbeat of 3 classes (N, S and V) from records 116, 215 and 220 of the MIT-BIH.
Test results (DS2) of the best parameters configuration.
| Filters | Acc | Class (N) | Class (S) | Class (V) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Se | +P | FPR | Se | +P | FPR | Se | + P | FPR | ||
| de Chazal | 85,8 | 87,6 | 96,6 | 27,6 | 28,7 | 24,4 | 3,4 | 92,6 | 42,2 | 8,7 |
| Common | 92,4 | 94,0 | 98,0 | 17,4 | 62,0 | 53,0 | 2,1 | 87,3 | 59,4 | 4,1 |
| Without filter | 83,1 | 84,1 | 97,1 | 22,6 | 50,8 | 13,0 | 13,1 | 88,6 | 74,0 | 2,1 |
Se, +P and FPR stands for Sensitivity, Positive Predictive Value and False Positive Rate, respectively.
Compared methods which used inter-patient paradigm and three classes (N), (S) and (V) for classification.
| Work | Acc | Class (N) | Class (S) | Class (V) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Se | +P | FPR | Se | +P | FPR | Se | +P | FPR | ||
| Proposed method | 92.4 | 94.0 | 98.0 | 17.4 | 62.0 | 53.0 | 2.1 | 87.3 | 59.4 | 4.1 |
| Proposed method on VCG | 78.0 | 79.1 | 96.3 | 27.0 | 31.2 | 8.4 | 13.0 | 89.5 | 46.1 | 7.2 |
| Lin & Yang, 2014[ | 93.0 | 91.0 | 99.0 | — | 81.0 | 31.0 | — | 86.0 | 73.0 | — |
| Llamedo & Martínez, 2011[ | 93.0 | 95.0 | 98.0 | — | 77.0 | 39.0 | — | 81.0 | 87.0 | — |
| Garcia et. al, 2016[ | 91 | 95 | 96 | 28 | 30 | 26 | 3 | 85 | 66 | 3 |
Confusion matrix for best parameters configurations, Common Filter in Table 4.
| Predicted Classes | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| (n) | (s) | (v) | |
|
| |||
| (N) | 41043 | 792 | 1834 |
| (S) | 657 | 1111 | 25 |
| (V) | 200 | 195 | 2724 |