| Literature DB >> 29771977 |
Imtiaz Awan1, Wajid Aziz1,2, Imran Hussain Shah3, Nazneen Habib4, Jalal S Alowibdi2, Sharjil Saeed1, Malik Sajjad Ahmed Nadeem1, Syed Ahsin Ali Shah1.
Abstract
Considerable interest has been devoted for developing a deeper understanding of the dynamics of healthy biological systems and how these dynamics are affected due to aging and disease. Entropy based complexity measures have widely been used for quantifying the dynamics of physical and biological systems. These techniques have provided valuable information leading to a fuller understanding of the dynamics of these systems and underlying stimuli that are responsible for anomalous behavior. The single scale based traditional entropy measures yielded contradictory results about the dynamics of real world time series data of healthy and pathological subjects. Recently the multiscale entropy (MSE) algorithm was introduced for precise description of the complexity of biological signals, which was used in numerous fields since its inception. The original MSE quantified the complexity of coarse-grained time series using sample entropy. The original MSE may be unreliable for short signals because the length of the coarse-grained time series decreases with increasing scaling factor τ, however, MSE works well for long signals. To overcome the drawback of original MSE, various variants of this method have been proposed for evaluating complexity efficiently. In this study, we have proposed multiscale normalized corrected Shannon entropy (MNCSE), in which instead of using sample entropy, symbolic entropy measure NCSE has been used as an entropy estimate. The results of the study are compared with traditional MSE. The effectiveness of the proposed approach is demonstrated using noise signals as well as interbeat interval signals from healthy and pathological subjects. The preliminary results of the study indicate that MNCSE values are more stable and reliable than original MSE values. The results show that MNCSE based features lead to higher classification accuracies in comparison with the MSE based features.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29771977 PMCID: PMC5957340 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196823
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Illustration of coarse-graining procedure using mean of data points in a non-overlapping window equal in length to the time scale.
Fig 2(a) Original times series (b) Coarse-grained time series (c) Data symbolization process (d) Histogram of symbol sequences.
Fig 3Mean ± SD values of the (a) MSE and (b) MNCSE computed from40 different WGN and 1/f noise signals.
Fig 4MSE (a-f) and MNCSE (g-l) as a function of data length, computed from 40 realizations of WGN and 1/f noise signals.
Mean ranks, corresponding p-values and area under ROC curve for comparison of MNCSE and MSE at temporal scales 1 to 15 for quantifying the dynamics of NSR, CHF and young and elderly subjects.
| 1 | 28.42 | 30.38 | 6.62×10−01 | 0.53 | 36.50 | 23.81 | 4.43×10−03 | 0.69 |
| 2 | 37.04 | 23.38 | 2.18×10−03 | 0.74 | 39.08 | 21.72 | 9.89×10−05 | 0.78 |
| 3 | 39.35 | 21.50 | 6.26×10−05 | 0.81 | 39.73 | 21.19 | 3.20×10−05 | 0.81 |
| 4 | 41.04 | 20.13 | 2.72×10−06 | 0.86 | 40.27 | 20.75 | 1.20×10−05 | 0.82 |
| 5 | 41.04 | 20.13 | 2.72×10−06 | 0.86 | 39.85 | 21.09 | 2.60×10−05 | 0.81 |
| 6 | 41.00 | 20.16 | 2.94×10−06 | 0.86 | 39.88 | 21.06 | 2.43×10−05 | 0.80 |
| 7 | 40.42 | 20.63 | 8.98×10−06 | 0.84 | 39.42 | 21.44 | 5.49×10−05 | 0.80 |
| 8 | 40.31 | 20.72 | 1.12×10−05 | 0.84 | 39.58 | 21.31 | 4.20×10−05 | 0.80 |
| 9 | 39.96 | 21.00 | 2.11×10−05 | 0.83 | 39.46 | 21.41 | 5.13×10−05 | 0.79 |
| 10 | 39.46 | 21.41 | 5.13×10−05 | 0.81 | 39.35 | 21.50 | 6.26×10−05 | 0.79 |
| 11 | 39.50 | 21.38 | 4.80×10−05 | 0.81 | 38.73 | 22.00 | 1.75×10−05 | 0.77 |
| 12 | 39.42 | 21.44 | 5.49×10−05 | 0.81 | 38.73 | 22.00 | 1.75×10−05 | 0.77 |
| 13 | 39.54 | 21.34 | 4.49×10−05 | 0.81 | 38.73 | 22.00 | 1.75×10−05 | 0.77 |
| 14 | 39.04 | 21.75 | 1.06×10−05 | 0.80 | 38.42 | 22.25 | 2.86×10−05 | 0.76 |
| 15 | 39.08 | 21.72 | 9.89×10−05 | 0.80 | 38.69 | 22.03 | 1.86×10−05 | 0.77 |
| 1 | 51.46 | 28.04 | 5.10×10−06 | 0.82 | 47.88 | 30.07 | 5.20×10−04 | 0.71 |
| 2 | 55.96 | 25.50 | 2.99×10−09 | 0.92 | 50.31 | 28.70 | 2.57×10−05 | 0.77 |
| 3 | 56.88 | 24.98 | 5.18×10−10 | 0.94 | 50.62 | 28.52 | 1.69×10−05 | 0.77 |
| 4 | 56.54 | 25.17 | 1.01×10−09 | 0.94 | 50.50 | 28.59 | 1.98×10−05 | 0.77 |
| 5 | 55.81 | 25.59 | 3.97×10−09 | 0.92 | 49.96 | 28.89 | 4.07×10−05 | 0.76 |
| 6 | 55.62 | 25.70 | 5.65×10−09 | 0.92 | 50.04 | 28.85 | 3.68×10−05 | 0.76 |
| 7 | 55.15 | 25.96 | 1.30×10−08 | 0.91 | 50.38 | 28.65 | 2.31×10−05 | 0.77 |
| 8 | 54.62 | 26.26 | 3.35×10−08 | 0.89 | 50.23 | 28.74 | 2.85×10−05 | 0.77 |
| 9 | 54.69 | 26.22 | 2.93×10−08 | 0.90 | 50.73 | 28.46 | 1.44×10−05 | 0.78 |
| 10 | 54.50 | 26.33 | 4.10×10−08 | 0.89 | 51.31 | 28.13 | 6.37×10−05 | 0.79 |
| 11 | 54.42 | 26.37 | 4.68×10−08 | 0.89 | 50.15 | 28.78 | 3.16×10−05 | 0.77 |
| 12 | 54.54 | 26.30 | 3.83×10−08 | 0.89 | 51.12 | 28.24 | 8.39×10−06 | 0.79 |
| 13 | 54.69 | 26.22 | 2.93×10−08 | 0.90 | 51.15 | 28.22 | 7.94×10−06 | 0.79 |
| 14 | 54.62 | 26.26 | 3.35×10−08 | 0.89 | 51.12 | 28.24 | 8.39×10−06 | 0.79 |
| 15 | 54.54 | 26.30 | 3.83×10−08 | 0.89 | 50.77 | 28.43 | 1.36×10−05 | 0.78 |
On comparing NSR young subjects with NSR elderly subjects, both scale-based measures provide dynamically more correct information at all temporal scales. The maximum separation between NSR elderly and young subjects was obtained at temporal scale 3, mean ranks (56.88 for young and 24.98 for elderly subjects), p-values5.18×10−10 and the AUC 0.94 using MNCSE. On the other hand, maximum separation between NSR elderly and young subjects is obtained at temporal scale 13, mean ranks (51.15 for young and 28.22 for elderly subjects), p-values 7.94×10−06 and AUC 0.79 using MNCSE.
Fig 5Mean ranks for comparison of a) MNCSE and b) MSE at temporal scales 1 to 15 for quantifying the dynamics of pathological with disease severity.
Fig 6Mean ranks for comparison of a) MNCSE and b) MSE at temporal scales 1 to 15 for quantifying the dynamics of pathological with disease severity.
Fig 7Classification accuracy (CA), computed using (a)10 by 10 FCV for separating NSR and CHF subjects (b) 10 by 10 FCV for separating NSR young and NSR elderly subjects (c) leave-one-out cross validation for separating NSR and CHF subjects (d) leave-one-out cross validation for separating NSR young and NSR elderly subjects.
Fig 8(a) RR interval time series from healthy subject (b) Time series obtained by excluding artifacts greater than 2s. (c) MNCSE analysis (d) MSE analysis.