| Literature DB >> 30404320 |
Yi-Chun Du1, Alphin Stephanus2.
Abstract
The most common treatment for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients is the hemodialysis (HD). For this kind of treatment, the functional vascular access that called arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is done by surgery to connect the vein and artery. Stenosis is considered the major cause of dysfunction of AVF. In this study, a noninvasive approach based on asynchronous analysis of bilateral photoplethysmography (PPG) with error correcting output coding support vector machine one versus rest (ESVM-OVR) for the degree of stenosis (DOS) evaluation is proposed. An artificial neural network (ANN) classifier is also applied to compare the performance with the proposed system. The testing data has been collected from 22 patients at the right and left thumb of the hand. The experimental results indicated that the proposed system could provide positive predictive value (PPV) reaching 91.67% and had higher noise tolerance. The system has the potential for providing diagnostic assistance in a wearable device for evaluation of AVF stenosis.Entities:
Keywords: arteriovenous fistula (AVF) stenosis; artificial neural network (ANN); bilateral photoplethysmography (PPG); degree of stenosis (DOS); error correcting output coding support vector machine-one versus rest (ESVM-OVR); positive predictive value (PPV)
Year: 2016 PMID: 30404320 PMCID: PMC6190273 DOI: 10.3390/mi7090147
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Micromachines (Basel) ISSN: 2072-666X Impact factor: 2.891
Figure 1Monitoring and recording system: (a) PPG probes placement; and (b) embedded system connected to a laptop computer.
Figure 2The method of the proposed system.
Figure 3Measurement area of the degree of stenosis (DOS) component with respect to the B-mode ultrasound image.
Class partition based on DOS.
| DOS | Class |
|---|---|
| DOS ≤ 30% | 1 |
| 30% ≤ DOS ≤ 50% | 2 |
| DOS ≥ 50% | 3 |
Support vector machine (SVM) kernels and its commonly used function.
| Kernel | Kernel Function |
|---|---|
| Quadratic | |
| RBF | |
| Linear |
Figure 4The block diagram of the models: (a) Error correcting output coding support vector machine-one versus rest (ESVM-OVR) and (b) artificial neural network (ANN).
The errors correcting code matrix for three classes and three code lengths.
| Class | ECOC | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| f1 | f2 | f3 | |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Subject data.
| Class | DOS | Age | Gender | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | |||||
| 1 | 1.52 | 1.63 | 0.130415 | 81 | √ | |
| 1.09 | 1.18 | 0.146725 | 78 | √ | ||
| 1.17 | 1.36 | 0.259894 | 87 | √ | ||
| 0.94 | 0.99 | 0.146725 | 86 | √ | ||
| 0.78 | 0.89 | 0.145607 | 65 | √ | ||
| 0.812 | 0.961 | 0.34535 | 81 | √ | ||
| 0.698 | 0.797 | 0.145607 | 54 | √ | ||
| 1.45 | 1.71 | 0.137399 | 81 | √ | ||
| 2 | 0.698 | 0.797 | 0.267894 | 81 | √ | |
| 0.78 | 0.89 | 0.145665 | 54 | √ | ||
| 0.78 | 0.89 | 0.352678 | 67 | √ | ||
| 0.812 | 0.961 | 0.268303 | 87 | √ | ||
| 0.78 | 0.89 | 0.278894 | 84 | √ | ||
| 0.87 | 0.68 | 0.353638 | 83 | √ | ||
| 0.812 | 0.961 | 0.268303 | 86 | √ | ||
| 0.812 | 0.961 | 0.278894 | 84 | √ | ||
| 3 | 0.94 | 0.99 | 0.26383 | 75 | √ | |
| 0.78 | 0.89 | 0.489894 | 86 | √ | ||
| 0.812 | 0.961 | 0.474949 | 85 | √ | ||
| 0.812 | 0.961 | 0.474940 | 89 | √ | ||
| 0.812 | 0.961 | 0.659894 | 83 | √ | ||
| 0.78 | 0.75 | 0.373282 | 83 | √ | ||
Figure 5Monitoring and recording system: (a) PPG probes placement; and (b) the embedded system connected to a tablet PC.
Figure 6Scattered plot of bilateral PPG feature.
The optimum statistical parameters values of the classifiers and the central processing unit (CPU) times consumed for training.
| Classifiers | Performance Parameters | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 90.9 | 92.59 | 95.23 | 88.89 | 0.22 | ||
| 77.27 | 82.22 | 88.09 | 77.79 | 0.16 | ||
| 72.72 | 85.71 | 85.71 | 70.83 | 0.19 | ||
| 80.00 | 76.67 | 91.84 | 88.89 | 3.00 | ||
Figure 7The characteristic of the new data samples.
The comparisons of optimum statistical parameters of proposed technique with respect to their noisy signal.
| Added Noise | Accuracy (%) | Precision (%) | Specificity (%) | Sensitivity (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SNR = 40 | 90.00 | 91.67 | 95.23 | 90.28 |
| SNR = 30 | 85.00 | 86.67 | 92.06 | 83.33 |
| SNR = 20 | 65.00 | 69.84 | 81.34 | 69.84 |
Figure 8Result comparison of (a) accuracy; (b) precision; (c) specificity and (d) sensitivity between the proposed technique and the ANN.
Comparing the experimental result with other similar study.
| The Approaches | Du et al. [ | Wang et al. [ | Wu et al. [ | Chen et al. [ | Proposed Technique |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Clinical Stenosis Detector | PPG | Stethoscope | Doppler Ultrasound | Stethoscope | PPG |
| Classifier Architecture | Cooperative Game Detector | ANN | I-G Decision Making | ANFIS | ESVM-OVR |
| The Number of Classes | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| System Performance Rate–PPV (%) | - | 87.84 | >80 | - | 91.67% |
| CPU Times Rates (seconds) | - | - | - | - | 0.22 |