| Literature DB >> 31667382 |
Ramiro Casal1,2,3, Leandro E Di Persia2,4, Gastón Schlotthauer1,2,3.
Abstract
The most important index of obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) is the apnea/hyponea index (AHI). The AHI is the number of apnea/hypopnea events per hour of sleep. Algorithms for the screening of OSAHS from pulse oximetry estimate an approximation to AHI counting the desaturation events without consider the sleep stage of the patient. This paper presents an automatic system to determine if a patient is awake or asleep using heart rate (HR) signals provided by pulse oximetry. In this study, 70 features are estimated using entropy and complexity measures, frequency domain and time-scale domain methods, and classical statistics. The dimension of feature space is reduced from 70 to 40 using three different schemes based on forward feature selection with support vector machine and feature importance with random forest. The algorithms were designed, trained and tested with 5000 patients from the Sleep Heart Health Study database. In the test stage, 10-fold cross validation method was applied obtaining performances up to 85.2% accuracy, 88.3% specificity, 79.0% sensitivity, 67.0% positive predictive value, and 91.3% negative predictive value. The results are encouraging, showing the possibility of using HR signals obtained from the same oximeter to determine the sleep stage of the patient, and thus potentially improving the estimation of AHI based on only pulse oximetry.Entities:
Keywords: Automatic sleep staging; Biomedical engineering; Computer science; Heart rate; Pulse oximetry; Sleep apnea
Year: 2019 PMID: 31667382 PMCID: PMC6812238 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02529
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1Hypnogram and HR. The states of awake (W) and asleep (S) are shown in the hypnogram (black). The dynamical changes between these states can be noticed in the HR signal (blue).
Characteristics of the study population in SHHS Visit 1.
| SHHS 1 (min, max) | |
|---|---|
| n | 5804 |
| Age (years) | 63.1 ± 11.2 (39.0, 90.0) |
| Female (%) | 52.3% |
| Epworth sleepiness scale | 7.8 ± 4.4 (0.0, 24.0) |
| Arousal index (/hr) | 19.2 ± 10.7 (0.0, 110.4) |
| AHI (/hr) | 9.6 ± 12.7 (0.0, 115.8) |
| TST (min) | 587.7 ± 107.6 (35.0, 858.0) |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 28.2 ± 5.1 (18.0, 50.0) |
| TST/TT (%) | 74.2% |
Figure 2Scheme of the algorithm. In the design stage, the feature extraction and selection is performed. In the test stage, the design system is tested with new data.
Figure 3Performance (Acc, Se and Sp) versus number of features with FFS-SVM with penalty errors in minority class (black), FFS-SVM with artificial balance (red), and feature importance and RF with artificial balance (blue).
Feature ranking. Top 40 features for different L using the algorithm FS 1.
| FS 1 | |
|---|---|
| 30 | mean, ApEn, TSMRE5, LF, LF/HF, |
| 60 | mean, ApEn, ApEnmax, first |
| 90 | mean, ApEn, ApEnmax, first |
| 120 | ApEn, mean, first |
| 150 | TSMRE3, mean, TSMRE5, ApEnmax, ApEn, ESVD, var |
| 180 | TSMRE3, mean, first |
| 210 | TSMRE3, mean, LZ of AC, ApEnmax, SBE5, TSMRE1, std, AR coefficient 4, TSMRE11, ESVD, ECM, FuzEn, LF/HF, SBE4, TSMRE13, LZ, first |
| 240 | TSMRE3, mean, first |
| 270 | TSMRE3, mean, LZ of AC, std, SBE5, ApEnmax, first |
| 300 | TSMRE3, mean, LZ of AC, ApEnmax, TSMRE1, SBE5, AR coefficient 4, std, TSMRE2, LF/HF, ESVD, ECM, TSMRE10, DispEn, normalize LF, SampEn, TSMRE16, TSMRE12, TSMRE30, HF, AR coefficient 2, TSMRE32, SBE6, TSMRE25, TSMRE15, AR coefficient 3, mean( |
Feature ranking. Top 40 features for different L using the algorithm FS 2.
| FS 2 | |
|---|---|
| 30 | mean, ApEn, first |
| 60 | mean, ApEn, ApEnmax, TSMRE3, SBE5, std, |
| 90 | mean, ApEn, ApEnmax, first |
| 120 | TSMRE3, mean, first |
| 150 | TSMRE3, mean, first |
| 180 | TSMRE3, mean, first |
| 210 | TSMRE3, mean, LZ of AC, ApEnmax, LF/HF, TSMRE1, SBE6, mean( |
| 240 | TSMRE3, mean, LZ of AC, SBE5, std, ApEnmax, LF/HF, TSMRE1, ESVD, TSMRE26, TSMRE2, LF, TSMRE30, first ZC, TSMRE13, TSMRE19, ApEn, SBE6, TSMRE31, SBE2, TSMRE24, TSMRE10, LZ, SBE8, TSMRE11, ECM, SampEn, AR coefficients 1, TSMRE15, TSMRE28, TSMRE29, var |
| 270 | TSMRE3, mean, LZ of AC, SBE5, std, ApEnmax, ESVD, TSMRE11, RE( |
| 300 | TSMRE3, mean, LZ of AC, TSMRE1, ApEnmax, SBE5, ESVD, TSMRE2, LF/HF, ECM, FuzEn, AR coefficients 4, TSMRE14, LF, first |
Feature ranking. Top 40 features for different L using the algorithm FS 3.
| FS 3 | |
|---|---|
| 30 | mean, HF, LF, ApEnmax, TP, std, mean( |
| 60 | mean, ApEnmax, TSMRE1, HF, ESVD, ECM, AR coefficients 1, TSMRE2, TSMRE19, TSMRE16, mean( |
| 90 | mean, ApEnmax, TSMRE2, TSMRE3, AR coefficients 1, ECM, first |
| 120 | mean, ApEnmax, TSMRE1, TSMRE2, first |
| 150 | mean, ApEnmax, TSMRE1, first |
| 180 | mean, ApEnmax, TSMRE1, first |
| 210 | mean, ApEnmax, TSMRE1, first |
| 240 | mean, ApEnmax, TSMRE1, first |
| 270 | mean, ApEnmax, TSMRE1, first |
| 300 | mean, TSMRE1, ApEnmax, first |
Confusion matrix of the final results in database of 4500 remaining patients for different values of L. The performance obtained can be seen in shades of gray. FS 1: FFS-SVM with penalty error in minority class. FS 2: FFS-SVM with artificial balance. FS 3: variable selection with RF. Waking and sleeping states are labeled as W and S.
Performance of the algorithms in database of 4500 remaining patients for different values of L. FS 1: forward feature selection and SVM with penalty error in minority class. FS 2: forward feature selection and SVM with artificial balance. FS 3: variable selection with random forest. The best results are highlighted in bold type.
| Acc | Sp | Se | PPV | NPV | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FS 1 | 54.6 | 83.1 | ||||
| FS 2 | 73.6 | 80.6 | 55.0 | 48.4 | 83.6 | 30 |
| FS 3 | 69.7 | 72.7 | 43.1 | |||
| FS 1 | 63.8 | 86.5 | ||||
| FS 2 | 79.2 | 85.4 | 64.7 | 57.6 | 86.7 | 60 |
| FS 3 | 76.6 | 80.2 | 52.5 | |||
| FS 1 | 67.8 | 87.7 | ||||
| FS 2 | 80.4 | 85.7 | 68.2 | 59.0 | 87.8 | 90 |
| FS 3 | 78.2 | 81.4 | 54.4 | |||
| FS 1 | 70.4 | 88.5 | ||||
| FS 2 | 86.1 | 70.9 | 60.3 | 88.7 | 120 | |
| FS 3 | 79.4 | 82.2 | 56.0 | |||
| FS 1 | 72.8 | 89.3 | ||||
| FS 2 | 82.0 | 86.2 | 73.3 | 61.1 | 89.4 | 150 |
| FS 3 | 80.3 | 83.0 | 57.3 | |||
| FS 1 | 74.4 | 89.8 | ||||
| FS 2 | 82.8 | 86.7 | 74.7 | 62.4 | 89.9 | 180 |
| FS 3 | 81.2 | 83.8 | 58.6 | |||
| FS 1 | 75.9 | 90.3 | ||||
| FS 2 | 83.4 | 87.0 | 76.1 | 63.4 | 90.3 | 210 |
| FS 3 | 81.9 | 84.3 | 59.8 | |||
| FS 1 | 77.2 | 90.7 | ||||
| FS 2 | 84.0 | 87.4 | 77.3 | 64.6 | 90.7 | 240 |
| FS 3 | 82.6 | 84.9 | 61.0 | |||
| FS 1 | 78.3 | 91.1 | ||||
| FS 2 | 84.6 | 87.8 | 78.3 | 65.7 | 91.1 | 270 |
| FS 3 | 83.1 | 85.3 | 62.0 | |||
| FS 1 | 79.0 | 91.3 | ||||
| FS 2 | 85.0 | 88.1 | 79.2 | 66.7 | 91.4 | 300 |
| FS 3 | 83.6 | 85.9 | 63.1 | |||
Figure 4The percentage P(%) of the total asleep/awake time only considering segments of length greater than L.
Comparison with the literature.
| Method | Signal | N. of classes | N. of patients | Epoch time | Acc | Se | Sp | Prec | NPV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beattie et al. | PPG + accelerometer | 5 | 60 | 30 s | 90.6 | 69.3 | 94.6 | 70.5 | 94.3 |
| PPG | 2 | 10 | 30 s | 76.8 | 76 | 77 | 41.2 | 93.8 | |
| Uçar et al. | HRV | 2 | 10 | 30 s | 72.4 | 74 | 72 | 35.9 | 92.9 |
| PPG + HRV | 2 | 10 | 30 s | 76.7 | 80 | 76 | 41.4 | 94.7 | |
| Adnane et al. | ECG | 2 | 18 | 30 s | 80 | 69.1 | 84.5 | 64.5 | 87 |
| Xiao et al. | ECG | 3 | 45 | 5 min | 83.9 | 51.1 | 90.2 | 49.58 | 90.7 |