| Literature DB >> 32722630 |
Hung-Yu Chang1,2, Cheng-Yu Yeh3, Chung-Te Lee3, Chun-Cheng Lin3.
Abstract
Many works in recent years have been focused on developing a portable and less expensive system for diagnosing patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), instead of using the inconvenient and expensive polysomnography (PSG). This study proposes a sleep apnea detection system based on a one-dimensional (1D) deep convolutional neural network (CNN) model using the single-lead 1D electrocardiogram (ECG) signals. The proposed CNN model consists of 10 identical CNN-based feature extraction layers, a flattened layer, 4 identical classification layers mainly composed of fully connected networks, and a softmax classification layer. Thirty-five released and thirty-five withheld ECG recordings from the MIT PhysioNet Apnea-ECG Database were applied to train the proposed CNN model and validate its accuracy for the detection of the apnea events. The results show that the proposed model achieves 87.9% accuracy, 92.0% specificity, and 81.1% sensitivity for per-minute apnea detection, and 97.1% accuracy, 100% specificity, and 95.7% sensitivity for per-recording classification. The proposed model improves the accuracy of sleep apnea detection in comparison with several feature-engineering-based and feature-learning-based approaches.Entities:
Keywords: convolutional neural network; deep learning; obstructive sleep apnea; single-lead electrocardiogram
Year: 2020 PMID: 32722630 PMCID: PMC7435835 DOI: 10.3390/s20154157
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Block diagram of the proposed sleep apnea detection system based on a 1D deep convolutional neural network (CNN) model.
Figure 2Illustration of a 1-min ECG signal (top) and the signals after bandpass filtering (middle) and z-score normalization (bottom).
Figure 3Block diagram of the proposed 1D deep CNN model for identifying normal and apnea events.
Summary of the proposed 1D deep CNN model.
| Layers | Parameters | Output Shape |
|---|---|---|
| Input | (None, 6000, 1) | |
| Feature Extraction Layer 1 | ||
| Conv-45 | filters = 45, kernel size = 32 | (None, 6000, 45) |
| Batch Normalization | (None, 6000, 45) | |
| Activation | ReLu | (None, 6000, 45) |
| Max Pooling | pool size = 2, strides = 2 | (None, 3000, 45) |
| Dropout | dropout rate = 0.5 | (None, 3000, 45) |
| ● ● ● | ||
| Feature Extraction Layer 10 | ||
| Conv-45 | filters = 45, kernel size = 32 | (None, 11, 45) |
| Batch Normalization | (None, 11, 45) | |
| Activation | ReLu | (None, 11, 45) |
| Max Pooling | pool size = 2, strides = 2 | (None, 5, 45) |
| Dropout | dropout rate = 0.5 | (None, 5, 45) |
| Flatten | (None, 225) | |
| Classification Layer 1 | ||
| FC-512 | units = 512 | (None, 512) |
| Batch Normalization | (None, 512) | |
| Activation | ReLu | (None, 512) |
| Dropout | dropout rate = 0.5 | (None, 512) |
| ● ● ● | ||
| Classification Layer 4 | ||
| FC-512 | units = 512 | (None, 512) |
| Batch Normalization | (None, 512) | |
| Activation | ReLu | (None, 512) |
| Dropout | dropout rate = 0.5 | (None, 512) |
| FC-2 | Softmax | (None, 2) |
Figure 4Training and validation history curves of per-minute apnea analysis for the proposed 1D deep CNN model: (a) accuracy curves, and (b) loss curves.
Figure 5The best validation accuracy values of per-minute apnea analysis in each of the 10 experiments with the corresponding sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the (receiver operating characteristic (ROC)) curve (AUC).
Figure 6ROC curves corresponding to the model with the best validation accuracy values of per-minute apnea analysis in each of the 10 experiments.
Summary of the confusion matrix and performance parameters of per-minute apnea analysis for the training/released and validation/withheld datasets.
| Dataset | Predict | N | A | Sen (%) | Spe (%) | Acc (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Label | |||||||
| Training/Released | N | 9760 | 562 | 91.5 | 94.6 | 93.4 | |
| A | 565 | 6092 | |||||
| Validation/Withheld | N | 9863 | 854 | 81.1 | 92.0 | 87.9 | |
| A | 1230 | 5287 | |||||
N: Normal event; A: Apnea event; Sen: Sensitivity; Spe: Specificity; and Acc: Accuracy.
Summary of the results of the per-recording analysis for the training/released and validation/withheld datasets.
| Dataset | Recordings | Diagnostic Criteria | Sen (%) | Spe (%) | Acc (%) | Corr. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training/Released | 35 | 5 | 95.7 | 100 | 97.1 | 0.938 |
| Validation/Withheld | 35 | 5 | 95.7 | 100 | 97.1 | 0.865 |
Sen: Sensitivity; Spe: Specificity; Acc: Accuracy; and Corr.: Correlation.
Figure 7Curves of the number of feature extraction layers vs. the best accuracy in 10 experiments with the corresponding specificity, sensitivity, and AUC.
Comparison of the signal preprocessing methods of the proposed apnea system with the previous studies.
| Reference | Signal Preprocessing Methods |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Our Study | Bandpass Filtering + Z-score Normalization |
| Singh and Majumder [ | Bandpass Filtering + Continuous Wavelet Transform + |
| Wang et al. [ | FIR Filtering + R-peaks Detection + |
| Li et al. [ | Bandpass Filtering + R-peaks Detection + |
|
| |
| Sharma and Sharma [ | Bandpass Filtering + R-peaks Detection + |
| Song et al. [ | Filter-Bank-Based R-peaks Detection + |
| Varon et al. [ | Notch Filtering + DC Component Remove + |
FIR: Finite impulse response; DC: Direct current; and EDR: ECG-derived respiration.
Performance comparison of the proposed 1D deep CNN model with the previous studies for the per-minute apnea detection.
| Reference | Methods | Sen (%) | Spe (%) | Acc (%) | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Our Study | The proposed 1D Deep CNN Model | 81.1 | 92.0 | 87.9 | 0.94 |
| Singh and Majumder [ | Pre-trained AlexNet CNN + | 90.0 | 83.8 | 86.2 | 0.88 |
| Wang et al. [ | LeNet-5 CNN | 83.1 | 90.3 | 87.6 | 0.95 |
| Li et al. [ | Auto-encoder + Decision Fusion | 88.9 | 82.1 | 84.7 | 0.87 |
|
| |||||
| Sharma and Sharma [ | Feature Engineering + LS-SVM | 79.5 | 88.4 | 83.8 | 0.83 |
| Song et al. [ | Feature Engineering + HMM-SVM | 82.6 | 88.4 | 86.2 | 0.94 |
| Varon et al. [ | Feature Engineering + LS-SVM | 84.7 | 84.7 | 84.7 | 0.88 |
Performance comparison of the proposed apnea detection system with the previous studies for the per-recording classification.
| Reference | Recordings | Diagnostic Criteria | Sen (%) | Spe (%) | Acc (%) | Corr. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Our study | 23 | 5 | 95.7 | 100 | 97.1 | 0.865 |
| Singh and Majumder [ | 100 | 100 | 100 | - | ||
| Wang et al. [ | 100 | 91.7 | 97.1 | 0.943 | ||
| Li et al. [ | 100 | 100 | 100 | - | ||
| Sharma and Sharma [ | 95.8 | 100 | 97.1 | 0.841 | ||
| Song et al. [ | 95.8 | 100 | 97.1 | 0.860 |