| Literature DB >> 29378580 |
Yande Xiang1, Zhitao Lin2, Jianyi Meng3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The QRS complex is the most noticeable feature in the electrocardiogram (ECG) signal, therefore, its detection is critical for ECG signal analysis. The existing detection methods largely depend on hand-crafted manual features and parameters, which may introduce significant computational complexity, especially in the transform domains. In addition, fixed features and parameters are not suitable for detecting various kinds of QRS complexes under different circumstances.Entities:
Keywords: Convolutional neural network (CNN); Electrocardiogram (ECG); QRS complex detection
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29378580 PMCID: PMC5789562 DOI: 10.1186/s12938-018-0441-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Eng Online ISSN: 1475-925X Impact factor: 2.819
Summary of the channel distribution of the records in the MIT-BIH-AR database
| Channel 1 | Channel 2 | Record |
|---|---|---|
| MLII | V1 | 101 105 106 107 108 109 111 112 |
| 113 115 116 118 119 121 122 200 | ||
| 201 202 203 205 207 208 209 210 | ||
| 212 213 214 215 217 219 220 221 | ||
| 222 223 228 230 231 232 233 234 | ||
| MLII | V2 | 103 117 |
| MLII | V4 | 124 |
| MLII | V5 | 100 123 |
| V5 | MLII | 114 |
| V5 | V2 | 102 104 |
Fig. 1Overview of the proposed QRS complex detection method
Fig. 2Outputs obtained at preprocessing stage of the proposed method. a Raw ECG signal from record 200 in the MIT-BIH-AR database; b signal obtained by difference operation; c signal obtained by averaging operation; d signal obtained by averaging operation followed by difference operation
Fig. 3Segment method used for ECG signal
Fig. 4Structure of attention-based two-level 1-D CNN
Fig. 51-D CNN structure in the proposed detection system
Detail description of the proposed attention-based two-level 1-D CNN configuration
| Object-level CNN | Part-level CNN | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| CNN layer 1 | |||
| 1-D convolution kernel length | 5 | 5 | |
| 1-D subsampling factor | 2 | 2 | |
| Number of neurons | 5 | 5 | |
| CNN layer 2 | |||
| 1-D convolution kernel length | 5 | None | |
| 1-D subsampling factor | 2 | None | |
| Number of neurons | 5 | None | |
Performance evaluation of the proposed method using the MIT-BIH-AR database
| Record | Total beats | TP | FP | FN | Sen (%) | PPR (%) | DER (%) | Acc (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | 2273 | 2273 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 |
| 101 | 1865 | 1865 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 |
| 103 | 2084 | 2084 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 |
| 105 | 2572 | 2560 | 0 | 12 | 99.53 | 100.00 | 0.47 | 99.53 |
| 106 | 2027 | 2010 | 8 | 17 | 99.16 | 99.60 | 1.23 | 98.77 |
| 107 | 2137 | 2137 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 |
| 108 | 1763 | 1763 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 |
| 109 | 2532 | 2523 | 7 | 9 | 99.64 | 99.72 | 0.63 | 99.37 |
| 111 | 2124 | 2124 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 |
| 112 | 2539 | 2539 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 |
| 113 | 1795 | 1795 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 |
| 114 | 1879 | 1872 | 5 | 7 | 99.63 | 99.73 | 0.64 | 99.36 |
| 115 | 1953 | 1953 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 |
| 116 | 2412 | 2398 | 6 | 14 | 99.42 | 99.75 | 0.83 | 99.17 |
| 117 | 1535 | 1535 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 |
| 118 | 2278 | 2277 | 1 | 1 | 99.96 | 99.96 | 0.09 | 99.91 |
| 119 | 1987 | 1976 | 8 | 11 | 99.45 | 99.60 | 0.96 | 99.05 |
| 121 | 1863 | 1863 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 |
| 122 | 2476 | 2476 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 |
| 123 | 1518 | 1517 | 2 | 1 | 99.93 | 99.87 | 0.20 | 99.80 |
| 124 | 1619 | 1617 | 5 | 2 | 99.88 | 99.69 | 0.43 | 99.57 |
| 200 | 2601 | 2596 | 1 | 5 | 99.81 | 99.96 | 0.23 | 99.77 |
| 201 | 1963 | 1962 | 0 | 1 | 99.95 | 100.00 | 0.05 | 99.95 |
| 202 | 2136 | 2136 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 |
| 203 | 2980 | 2960 | 5 | 20 | 99.33 | 99.83 | 0.84 | 99.16 |
| 205 | 2656 | 2656 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 |
| 207 | 1860 | 1856 | 0 | 4 | 99.78 | 100.00 | 0.22 | 99.78 |
| 208 | 2955 | 2948 | 2 | 7 | 99.76 | 99.93 | 0.30 | 99.70 |
| 209 | 3005 | 3002 | 2 | 3 | 99.90 | 99.93 | 0.17 | 99.83 |
| 210 | 2650 | 2634 | 3 | 16 | 99.40 | 99.89 | 0.72 | 99.28 |
| 212 | 2748 | 2748 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 |
| 213 | 3251 | 3242 | 2 | 9 | 99.72 | 99.94 | 0.34 | 99.66 |
| 214 | 2262 | 2256 | 1 | 6 | 99.73 | 99.96 | 0.31 | 99.69 |
| 215 | 3363 | 3357 | 3 | 6 | 99.82 | 99.91 | 0.27 | 99.73 |
| 217 | 2208 | 2200 | 5 | 8 | 99.64 | 99.77 | 0.59 | 99.41 |
| 219 | 2154 | 2150 | 1 | 4 | 99.81 | 99.95 | 0.23 | 99.77 |
| 220 | 2048 | 2048 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 |
| 221 | 2427 | 2413 | 9 | 14 | 99.42 | 99.63 | 0.95 | 99.06 |
| 222 | 2483 | 2483 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 |
| 223 | 2605 | 2587 | 9 | 18 | 99.31 | 99.65 | 1.04 | 98.97 |
| 228 | 2053 | 2034 | 6 | 19 | 99.07 | 99.71 | 1.22 | 98.79 |
| 230 | 2256 | 2256 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 |
| 231 | 1571 | 1571 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 |
| 232 | 1780 | 1780 | 1 | 0 | 100.00 | 99.94 | 0.06 | 99.94 |
| 233 | 3079 | 3053 | 7 | 26 | 99.16 | 99.77 | 1.07 | 98.93 |
| 234 | 2753 | 2752 | 0 | 1 | 99.96 | 100.00 | 0.04 | 99.96 |
| Overall | 105,078 | 104,837 | 99 | 241 | 99.77 | 99.91 | 0.32 | 99.68 |
Comparison of performance of several QRS detection methods using the MIT-BIH-AR database
| Method | TP | FP | FN | Sen (%) | PPR (%) | DER (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zidelmal et al. [ | 108,323 | 97 | 171 | 99.84 | 99.91 | 0.25 |
| Arbateni and Bennia [ | 109,273 | 109 | 210 | 99.82 | 99.91 | 0.29 |
| Kholkhal and Reguig [ | 106,310 | 48 | 259 | 99.76 | 99.95 | 0.29 |
| This work | 104,837 | 99 | 241 | 99.77 | 99.91 | 0.32 |
| Zhou et al. [ | 109,224 | 139 | 213 | 99.81 | 99.87 | 0.32 |
| Bouaziz et al. [ | 109,354 | 232 | 140 | 99.87 | 99.79 | 0.34 |
| Phukpattaranont [ | 109,281 | 210 | 202 | 99.82 | 99.81 | 0.38 |
| Farashi [ | 109,692 | 163 | 273 | 99.75 | 99.85 | 0.39 |
| Hamdi et al. [ | 73,278 | 92 | 284 | 99.74 | 99.86 | 0.51 |
Fig. 6Examples of incorrect detection in record 203
Comparison of DER values on 105, 108, 121, 200, 202, and 217 records of the MIT-BIH-AR database
| Method | 105 | 108 | 121 | 200 | 202 | 217 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| This work | 0.47 |
|
| 0.23 |
| 0.59 |
| Zidelmal et al. [ | 1.24 | 2.44 | 0.16 | 0.23 | 0.09 | 0.23 |
| Arbateni and Bennia [ | 0.23 | 0.51 | 0.16 | 0.31 | 0.33 | 0.64 |
| Kholkhal and Reguig [ | 0.37 | 0.53 | 0.11 | 0.37 | 0.05 | 0.14 |
| Zhou et al. [ | 1.48 | 2.72 | 0.05 | 0.66 | 0.28 |
|
| Bouaziz et al. [ | 0.81 | 8.40 | 0.10 | 0.30 | 0.09 | 0.23 |
| Phukpattaranont [ | 1.59 | 4.08 |
| 0.19 |
| 0.27 |
| Farashi [ | 2.60 | 2.95 | 0.16 | 0.81 | 1.17 | 0.27 |
| Hamdi et al. [ |
| 0.11 | 0.27 |
| 1.17 |
|
Best results are italicized
Detection performance with noise added and without noise
| Record | Index | Without | SNR in noise added (dB) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 90 | 80 | 70 | 60 | 50 | 40 | 30 | 20 | 10 | |||
| 105 | Sen (%) | 99.53 | 99.53 | 99.53 | 99.53 | 99.53 | 99.42 | 99.22 | 99.11 | 98.73 | 96.71 |
| PPR (%) | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 99.84 | 99.65 | 99.57 | 99.07 | 97.52 | |
| DER (%) | 0.47 | 0.47 | 0.47 | 0.47 | 0.47 | 0.74 | 1.12 | 1.32 | 2.20 | 5.74 | |
| 108 | Sen (%) | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 99.94 | 99.77 | 99.77 | 99.27 | 97.51 |
| PPR (%) | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 99.83 | 99.66 | 99.60 | 99.21 | 96.97 | |
| DER (%) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.23 | 0.57 | 0.62 | 1.52 | 5.53 | |
| 121 | Sen (%) | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 99.89 | 99.84 | 99.84 | 99.15 | 97.13 |
| PPR (%) | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 99.95 | 99.79 | 99.79 | 99.47 | 97.59 | |
| DER (%) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.16 | 0.38 | 0.38 | 1.38 | 5.27 | |
| 200 | Sen (%) | 99.81 | 99.81 | 99.81 | 99.81 | 99.81 | 99.73 | 99.58 | 99.43 | 99.35 | 97.08 |
| PPR (%) | 99.96 | 99.96 | 99.96 | 99.96 | 99.96 | 99.85 | 99.65 | 99.62 | 99.46 | 97.59 | |
| DER (%) | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.42 | 0.77 | 0.96 | 1.19 | 5.31 | |
| 202 | Sen (%) | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 99.86 | 99.58 | 99.53 | 99.40 | 96.09 |
| PPR (%) | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 99.81 | 99.58 | 99.58 | 99.44 | 97.80 | |
| DER (%) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.33 | 0.84 | 0.89 | 1.16 | 6.07 | |
| 217 | Sen (%) | 99.64 | 99.64 | 99.64 | 99.64 | 99.64 | 99.59 | 99.50 | 99.50 | 99.10 | 95.69 |
| PPR (%) | 99.77 | 99.77 | 99.77 | 99.77 | 99.77 | 99.73 | 99.64 | 99.59 | 99.32 | 96.62 | |
| DER (%) | 0.59 | 0.59 | 0.59 | 0.59 | 0.59 | 0.68 | 0.86 | 0.90 | 1.58 | 7.66 | |
Fig. 7Sen variation according to different SNR values based on 105, 108, 121, 200, 202, and 217 ECG records
Performance evaluation of the proposed method using the INCART database
| Total beats | TP | FP | FN | Sen (%) | PPR (%) | DER (%) | Acc (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 175,914 | 175,660 | 189 | 254 | 99.86 | 99.89 | 0.25 | 99.75 |