| Literature DB >> 30373211 |
Yongbo Liang1, Zhencheng Chen2, Rabab Ward3, Mohamed Elgendi4,5,6.
Abstract
Blood pressure is a basic physiological parameter in the cardiovascular circulatory system. Long-term abnormal blood pressure will lead to various cardiovascular diseases, making the early detection and assessment of hypertension profoundly significant for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases. In this paper, we investigate whether or not deep learning can provide better results for hypertension risk stratification when compared to the classical signal processing and feature extraction methods. We tested a deep learning method for the classification and evaluation of hypertension using photoplethysmography (PPG) signals based on the continuous wavelet transform (using Morse) and pretrained convolutional neural network (using GoogLeNet). We collected 121 data recordings from the Multiparameter Intelligent Monitoring in Intensive Care (MIMIC) Database, each containing arterial blood pressure (ABP) and photoplethysmography (PPG) signals. The ABP signals were utilized to extract blood pressure category labels, and the PPG signals were used to train and test the model. According to the seventh report of the Joint National Committee, blood pressure levels are categorized as normotension (NT), prehypertension (PHT), and hypertension (HT). For the early diagnosis and assessment of HT, the timely detection of PHT and the accurate diagnosis of HT are significant. Therefore, three HT classification trials were set: NT vs. PHT, NT vs. HT, and (NT + PHT) vs. HT. The F-scores of these three classification trials were 80.52%, 92.55%, and 82.95%, respectively. The tested deep method achieved higher accuracy for hypertension risk stratification when compared to the classical signal processing and feature extraction method. Additionally, the method achieved comparable results to another approach that requires electrocardiogram and PPG signals.Entities:
Keywords: blood pressure monitoring; digital medicine; global health; hypertension assessment; hypertension evaluation; pulse arrival time; pulse morphology; pulse oximeter; wearable devices
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30373211 PMCID: PMC6316358 DOI: 10.3390/bios8040101
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biosensors (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6374
Figure 1A signal processing structure. Note: PPG stands for photoplethysmogram, ECG stands for electrocardiogram, BP stands for blood pressure, and JNC7 stands for the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee.
Figure 2The scalogram cases of the three different blood pressure categories. Note: PPG stands for photoplethysmogram.
Figure 3Flowchart of the study.
Classification performance of the proposed deep learning method and feature-based methods on the same recordings from the MIMIC database [33]. Note, NT, PHT, and HT represent normotension, prehypertension, and hypertension, respectively. PAT stands for pulse arrival time, CWT stands for continuous wavelet transform, KNN stands for k-nearest neighbors.
| Trial | Feature | Classifier | F1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| This study | NT (46) vs. PHT (41) | CWT scalogram | GoogLeNet | 80.52% |
| NT (46) vs. PHT (34) | CWT scalogram | 92.55% | ||
| (NT + PHT) (87) vs. HT (34) | CWT scalogram | 82.95% | ||
| PAT feature [ | NT (46) vs. PHT (41) | PAT and 10 PPG features | 84.34% | |
| NT (46) vs. HT (34) | PAT and 10 PPG features | KNN | 94.84% | |
| (NT+PHT) (87) vs. HT (34) | PAT and 10 PPG features | 88.49% | ||
| PPG features [ | NT (46) vs. PHT (41) | 10 PPG features | 78.62% | |
| NT (46) vs. HT (34) | 10 PPG features | KNN | 86.94% | |
| (NT+PHT) (87) vs. HT (34) | 10 PPG features | 78.44% |
Figure 4The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the three classification trials.