| Literature DB >> 31195603 |
Yinsheng Ji1,2, Sen Zhang3,4, Wendong Xiao5,6.
Abstract
The classification of electrocardiograms (ECG) plays an important role in the clinical diagnosis of heart disease. This paper proposes an effective system development and implementation for ECG classification based on faster regions with a convolutional neural network (Faster R-CNN) algorithm. The original one-dimensional ECG signals contain the preprocessed patient ECG signals and some ECG recordings from the MIT-BIH database in this experiment. Each ECG beat of one-dimensional ECG signals was transformed into a two-dimensional image for experimental training sets and test sets. As a result, we classified the ECG beats into five categories with an average accuracy of 99.21%. In addition, we did a comparative experiment using the one versus rest support vector machine (OVR SVM) algorithm, and the classification accuracy of the proposed Faster R-CNN was shown to be 2.59% higher.Entities:
Keywords: automatic classification; convolutional neural network; deep learning; electrocardiogram; electrocardiogram preconditioning
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31195603 PMCID: PMC6603727 DOI: 10.3390/s19112558
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Overall procedure involved in electrocardiogram (ECG) beat classification.
Figure 2Individual intrinsic mode functions (IMFs) after ECG decomposition.
Figure 3ECG signal processing flow based on empirical mode decomposition (EMD).
Figure 4Comparison of the original signal and the processed signal.
Figure 5Find the position of the R wave based on discrete wavelet transform (DWT).
Figure 6ECG beat extraction process.
Figure 7Normal beat and four ECG arrhythmia beats.
Figure 8Faster regions with a convolutional neural network (Faster R-CNN) architecture.
Figure 9Region proposal network [36].
Figure 10Intersection-over-union (IoU).
Figure 11Non-maximum suppression.
Software information in the experiment.
| Software Information | Version Number |
|---|---|
| MATLAB | 2017a |
| CUDA | 8.0 |
| OpenCV | 2.4.9 |
| Python | 3.5 |
| Visual Studio | 2012 |
Classification of electrocardiogram (ECG) beats using the AAMI standard [38].
| AAMI ECG Beat Class | MIT-BIH ECG Beat Types |
|---|---|
| Normal (N) | Normal (NOR), left bundle branch block (LBBB), right bundle branch block (RBBB), atrial escape (AE), nodal (junctional) escape beat (NE) |
| Supraventricular (S) | Atrial premature (AP), aberrated atrial premature (aAP), nodal (junctional) premature (NP), supraventricular premature (SP) |
| Ventricular (V) | Premature ventricular contraction (PVC), ventricular escape (VE) |
| Fusion (F) | Fusion of ventricular and normal (FVN) |
| Unknown (Q) | Paced (/), fusion of paced and normal (FPN), unclassified (U) |
Definition of four classification results.
| Type | Definition |
|---|---|
| True positive (TP) | The number of abnormal ECG beats correctly classified |
| False positive (FP) | Abnormal ECG beats divided into normal numbers |
| True negative (TN) | The number of normal ECG beats correctly classified |
| False negative (FN) | Normal ECG beats divided into abnormal numbers |
Number of ECG beats per class in the MIT-BIH database.
| Type | Records | Number |
|---|---|---|
|
| 100, 101, 103, 105, 108, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 121, 122, 123, 202, 205, 219, 230, 234 | 75,052 |
|
| 109, 111, 207, 213 | 8074 |
|
| 118, 124, 212, 231 | 7259 |
|
| 106, 116, 119, 200, 201, 203, 208, 210, 213, 215, 221, 228, 233 | 7129 |
|
| 108, 109, 114, 124, 200, 201, 202, 203, 205, 208, 210, 213, 214, 215, 219, 223, 233 | 803 |
Number of ECG beats per class used in the experiment.
| Type | NOR | LBBB | RBBB | PVC | FVN | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Label | N | L | R | V | F | |
| Patient data | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 2000 | 10,000 |
| MIT-BIH data | 8500 | 8074 | 7259 | 7129 | 8030 | 38,992 |
| Training set number | 5250 | 5037 | 4630 | 4565 | 5015 | 24,497 |
| Test set number | 5250 | 5037 | 4629 | 4564 | 5015 | 24,495 |
Learning rate test results.
| Learning Rate | Loss | mAP |
|---|---|---|
| 0.0001 | 0.011 | 0.992 |
| 0.001 | 0.015 | 0.987 |
| 0.01 | 0.031 | 0.952 |
| 0.1 | 0.072 | 0.85 |
Weight attenuation coefficient test results.
| Weight Decay | Loss | mAP |
|---|---|---|
| 0.0001 | 0.006 | 0.981 |
| 0.0005 | 0.013 | 0.987 |
| 0.001 | 0.017 | 0.983 |
| 0.05 | 0.052 | 0.974 |
| 0.1 | 0.064 | 0.970 |
Iteration number test results.
| Iterations | mAP |
|---|---|
| 2000 | 0.86 |
| 4000 | 0.987 |
| 6000 | 0.954 |
| 8000 | 0.923 |
Figure 12The detected ECG beats.
Figure 13Score threshold test results.
The classification results of Faster R-CNN. Acc—accuracy; Sen—sensitivity; Spe—specificity.
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 5149 | 33 | 30 | 9 | 29 | 99.11 | 98.27 | 99.39 | |
|
| 13 | 4975 | 21 | 4 | 24 | 99.32 | 98.77 | 99.47 | |
|
| 35 | 27 | 4520 | 12 | 35 | 99.09 | 97.65 | 99.43 | |
|
| 52 | 15 | 26 | 4452 | 19 | 99.38 | 97.54 | 99.44 | |
|
| 17 | 29 | 37 | 14 | 4918 | 99.17 | 98.07 | 99.50 | |
Figure 14The detected sample graph consisting of multiple ECG beats.
Train set of the one versus rest support vector machine (OVR SVM).
| Type | Positive Sample | Negative Sample |
|---|---|---|
| Training set number (N) | 5250 | 19,245 |
| Training set number (L) | 5037 | 19,458 |
| Training set number (R) | 4629 | 19,866 |
| Training set number (V) | 4564 | 19,931 |
| Training set number (F) | 5015 | 19,480 |
The classification results of the OVR SVM.
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 4917 | 67 | 107 | 43 | 116 | 96.82 | 93.66 | 97.69 | |
|
| 175 | 4465 | 120 | 126 | 151 | 96.35 | 88.64 | 98.35 | |
|
| 114 | 57 | 4252 | 114 | 92 | 96.55 | 91.86 | 97.64 | |
|
| 82 | 111 | 147 | 4117 | 107 | 96.68 | 90.21 | 98.16 | |
|
| 74 | 87 | 95 | 84 | 4675 | 96.71 | 93.22 | 97.61 | |
Figure 15Faster R-CNN and one versus rest support vector machine (OVR SVM) comparison results.
Comparison with existing approaches. 1D—one-dimensional; LSTM—long short-term memory; RNN—recurrent neural network; K-NN—K-nearest neighbor.
| Method | Work | Type | Acc (%) | Sen (%) | Spe (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nine-Layer CNN | U Rajendra Acharya [ | 5 | 94.03 | 96.71 | 91.54 |
| 1D CNN | Kiranyaz et al. [ | 5 | 96.4 | 68.8 | 99.5 |
| CNN | Zub air et al. [ | 5 | 92.70 | - | - |
| CNN + LSTM | Shu Lih Oh et al. [ | 5 | 98.10 | 97.50 | 98.70 |
| RNN | Ubeyli et al. [ | 4 | 98.06 | 98.15 | 97.78 |
| K-NN | Prasad et al. [ | 3 | 97.65 | 98.16 | 98.75 |
| K-NN | Park et al. [ | 17 | 97 | 96.6 | 95.8 |