| Literature DB >> 31737240 |
Junli Gao1, Hongpo Zhang1,2, Peng Lu3, Zongmin Wang1.
Abstract
To reduce the high mortality rate from cardiovascular disease (CVD), the electrocardiogram (ECG) beat plays a significant role in computer-aided arrhythmia diagnosis systems. However, the complex variations and imbalance of ECG beats make this a challenging issue. Since ECG beat data exist in heavily imbalanced category, an effective long short-term memory (LSTM) recurrence network model with focal loss (FL) is proposed. For this purpose, the LSTM network can disentangle the timing features in complex ECG signals, while the FL is used to resolve the category imbalance by downweighting easily identified normal ECG examples. The advantages of the proposed network have been verified in the MIT-BIH arrhythmia database. Experimental results show that the LSTM network with FL achieved a reliable solution to the problem of imbalanced datasets in ECG beat classification and was not sensitive to quality of ECG signals. The proposed method can be deployed in telemedicine scenarios to assist cardiologists into more accurately and objectively diagnosing ECG signals.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31737240 PMCID: PMC6815557 DOI: 10.1155/2019/6320651
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1ECG signal denoised by db6 wavelet.
Figure 2Sliding window search method extracts ECG beats.
Figure 3Long short-term memory block.
Figure 4LSTM recurrent network architecture.
Figure 5Block diagram to calculate loss value using focal loss.
Figure 6Training of the LSTM with FL (γ=2). (a) Loss curve. (b) Accuracy curve.
ECG beat types used in this work.
| ECG beat types | Annotation | Number of beats |
|---|---|---|
| Normal beat | N | 75,020 |
| Left bundle branch block | LBBB | 8,072 |
| Right bundle branch block | RBBB | 7,255 |
| Atrial premature contraction | APC | 2,546 |
| Nodal (junctional) escape beat | NESC | 229 |
| Aberrated atrial premature beat | ABERR | 150 |
| Nodal (junctional) premature beat | NPC | 83 |
| Atrial escape beat | AESC | 16 |
| Total | — | 93,371 |
LSTM network default parameter settings.
| LSTM cells | Network layers | Optimizer | Dropout | Epoch | Batch size | Cost function |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 64 | 4 | Nadam | 0 | 350 | 128 | Focal loss | 2 |
Classification accuracy of different dropout proportions.
| Dropout | 0 | 0.10 | 0.15 | 0.20 | 0.25 | 0.30 |
| ACC of testing set (%) | 99.26 | 98.7 | 99.21 | 98.46 | 99.09 | 99.07 |
Classification accuracy of different batch sizes.
| Batch size | 32 | 64 | 128 | 256 | 512 |
| ACC of testing set (%) | 81.20 | 97.87 | 99.26 | 99.11 | 98.72 |
Overall accuracy of FL over different γ parameter.
|
| 0 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| ACC of testing set (%) | 98.85 | 99.08 | 99.03 | 99.26 | 99.11 | 98.82 |
Figure 7Confusion matrix obtained by the LSTM network using different loss functions on the testing set: (a) CE and (b) FL (γ=2).
LSTM network classification results on the testing set using two different loss methods.
| Cost function | ACC (%) | RE (%) | SP (%) | PR (%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cross entropy | 98.70 | 98.70 | 98.05 | 98.75 | 98.36 |
| Focal loss ( | 99.26 | 99.26 | 99.14 | 99.30 | 99.27 |
Figure 8Precision-recall curves for every class. (a) Using CE and (b) using FL (γ=2) method.
LSTM network with FL (γ=2) classification results on the testing set.
| ACC (%) | RE (%) | SP (%) | PR (%) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Denoised | 99.26 | 99.26 | 99.14 | 99.30 | 99.27 |
| Without denoised | 99.07 | 99.07 | 98.99 | 99.13 | 99.09 |
Comparison between the related work and the method proposed in this work.
| Works | Year | Classes | Methods | ACC (%) | RE (%) | SP (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Martis et al. [ | 2013 | 5 beat types | DCT + PCA, PNN | 99.52 | 98.69 | 99.91 |
| Raj et al. [ | 2016 | 16 beat types | DOST, SVM-PSO | 99.18 | — | — |
| Sharma and Ray [ | 2016 | 6 beat types | EMD, HHT, SVM | 99.51 | 98.64 | 99.77 |
| Gutiérrez-Gnecchi et al. [ | 2017 | 8 beat types | PNN | 98.89 | — | — |
| Jung and Lee [ | 2017 | 4 beat types | WKNN | 96.12 | 96.12 | 99.97 |
| Li et al. [ | 2017 | 6 beat types | GA-BPNN | 97.78 | 97.86 | 99.54 |
| Rajesh and Dhuli [ | 2018 | 5 beat groups | DBB, AdaBoost | 99.10 | 97.90 | 99.40 |
| W. Li and J. Li [ | 2018 | 16 beat types | LDP, DNN | 98.37 | — | — |
| Yildirim. [ | 2018 | 5 beat types | DULSTM-WS2 | 99.25 | — | — |
| Oh et al. [ | 2018 | 5 beat types | CNN-LSTM | 98.10 | 97.50 | 98.70 |
| Pławiak and Acharya [ | 2019 | 17 classes | DGEC | 99.37 | 94.62 | 99.66 |
| Yildirim et al. [ | 2019 | 5 beat types | LSTM | 99.23 | 99.00 | 99.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DCT: discrete cosine transform; GMM + EM: Gaussian mixture modeling with enhanced expectation maximization; DOST: discrete orthogonal stockwell transform; SVM-PSO: PSO-tuned support vector machine; EMD: empirical mode decomposition; HHT: Hilbert–Huang transform; PNN: probabilistic neural network; WKNN: weighted k-nearest neighbor; NRSC: neighborhood rough set; DWT: discrete wavelet transform; GA-BPNN: genetic algorithm-backpropagation neural network; DNN: deep neural network; DULSTM-WS: deep unidirectional LSTM network-based wavelet sequences; DBLSTM-WS: deep bidirectional LSTM network-based wavelet sequences; LDP: local deep field; DBB: distribution-based balancing; FL: focal loss; DGEC: deep genetic ensemble of classifiers.