| Literature DB >> 33265493 |
Shixue Sun1, Yu Jin1, Chang Chen1, Baoqing Sun2, Zhixin Cao3, Iek Long Lo4, Qi Zhao1, Jun Zheng1, Yan Shi5, Xiaohua Douglas Zhang1.
Abstract
Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease featured with unpredictable flare-ups, for which continuous lung function monitoring is the key for symptoms control. To find new indices to individually classify severity and predict disease prognosis, continuous physiological data collected from monitoring devices is being studied from different perspectives. Entropy, as an analysis method for quantifying the inner irregularity of data, has been widely applied in physiological signals. However, based on our knowledge, there is no such study to summarize the complexity differences of various physiological signals in asthmatic patients. Therefore, we organized a systematic review to summarize the complexity differences of important signals in patients with asthma. We searched several medical databases and systematically reviewed existing asthma clinical trials in which entropy changes in physiological signals were studied. As a conclusion, we find that, for airflow, heart rate variability, center of pressure and respiratory impedance, their entropy values decrease significantly in asthma patients compared to those of healthy people, while, for respiratory sound and airway resistance, their entropy values increase along with the progression of asthma. Entropy of some signals, such as respiratory inter-breath interval, shows strong potential as novel indices of asthma severity. These results will give valuable guidance for the utilization of entropy in physiological signals. Furthermore, these results should promote the development of management and diagnosis of asthma using continuous monitoring data in the future.Entities:
Keywords: asthma; entropy; individualized treatment; irregularity; physiological signal
Year: 2018 PMID: 33265493 PMCID: PMC7512921 DOI: 10.3390/e20060402
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Entropy (Basel) ISSN: 1099-4300 Impact factor: 2.524
Figure 1PRISMA flow diagram.
GRADE analysis: applied entropy to physiologic parameters related with asthma.
| OutcomeMeasure | N (Arms) | Risk of Bias | Limitation of Study | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Effect Size | Quality of Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Airflow | 128(3) | No | No obvious limitations | No | No indirectness | No | Significant | High |
| HRV | 24(1) | No | No obvious limitations | No | No indirectness | No | Significant | High |
| entre of Pressure | 39(1) | No | No obvious limitations | No | No serious indirectness | No | Significant | Moderate |
| Respiratory sound | 51(3) | No | Limitation in study design and data collection | No | No serious indirectness | No | Significant | Low |
| Respiratory impedance | 74(1) | No | No obvious limitations | No | No indirectness | No | Significant | High |
| Airway resistance | 186(2) | No | Limitation in study design and data collection | No | No indirectness | No | Significant | Moderate |
Studies on Entropy Comparing Healthy subjects and Asthma Patients.
| Physiologic Signals | Study (Year) | Study Type | Entropy Method | Location | Number of Subjects | Age in Years as | Gender | Pulmonary Function | Entropy Result | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Airflow | Veiga et al., 2010 | Observational | ApEn | Brazil | Control 5 | Control 47.6 ± 19.7 | N/A | FVC, FEV1, FEF25–75%, | lower in asthmatic patients | No |
| Veiga et al., 2011 | Observational | ApEn | Brazil | Control 11 | Control 54.4 ± 15.1 | N/A | FVC, FEV1, FEF25–75%, FEV1/FVC, FEF/FVC | lower in asthmatic patients | Yes | |
| Raoufy et al., 2016 | Observational | SampEn | Iran | Control 10 | Control 27.6 ± 5.3 | N/A | N/A | lower in asthmatic subjects | Yes | |
| HRV | Garcia-Araujo et al., 2014 | Observational | ApEn | Brazil | Healthy 10 | Healthy 31 ± 8.7 | Healthy: 10/0 | FEV1, FVC, FEV1/FVC, VO2 | lower in asthmatic patients during respiratory sinus arrhythmia maneuver | No |
| Center of pressure | Kuznetsov et al., 2014 | Observational | SampEn | USA | Healthy 18 | Healthy 9.87 ± 2.77 | Healthy: 3/15 | N/A | lower in asthmatic patients | No |
| Respiratory Sound | Jin et al. 2008 | Observational | SampEn | Singapore | Control 7 | N/A | N/A | N/A | SampEn is effective for wheeze detection. | No |
| Aydore et al., 2009 | Retrospective | Renyi | USA | 7 (COPD & asthma) | 50 ± 17 | 4/3 | N/A | The Renyi entropy of wheeze signal has a uniform distribution | No | |
| Mondal et al., 2014 | Retrospective | SampEn | India | Normal 10 | N/A | N/A | N/A | higher in asthmatic subjects | No | |
| Respiratory Impedance | Veiga et al., 2012 | Observational | ApEn | Brazil | Control 12 | Control 52.7 ± 16.4 | N/A | FVC, FEV1, FEF25–75%, FEV1/FVC, FEF/FVC | higher in asthmatic patients | Yes |
| Airway Resistance | Gonem et al., 2012 | Observational | SampEn | UK | Control: 30 | Control: 47.0 ± 2.2 | Control: 12/18 | FEV1, FEV1/FVC | higher in asthmatic patients | No |
| Umar et al., 2010 | Observational | SampEn | UK | Control: 27 | Control: 54.1 ± 1.4 | Control: 9/18 | FEV1 | higher in asthmatic patients | No |
Abbreviations: NE: normal to exam; ILD: interstitial lung disease. FVC: Forced Vital Capacity; FEV1: Forced Expiratory Volume for the first second; FEF: Forced Expiratory Flow FEF2575%: FEF between 25% and 75%; CAA: controlled atopic asthma; UAA: uncontrolled atopic asthma, UNAA: uncontrolled non-atopic asthma; VO2: maximal oxygen consumption; GINA: Global Initiative for Asthma; AUC: area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve of (ROC).
Figure 2AUC area of Receiver Operating Characteristic curve. AUCs of some trials were calculated to evaluate the diagnostic ability of entropy for the severity of asthma. An index has an AUC value over 0.8 is considered good enough, and a value over 0.9 is considered excellent. SampEn of IBI has an excellent performance in distinguishing asthma patients from healthy people, ApEnZrs also performs excellently in distinguishing severe asthma patients. Besides, the ApEn of airflow has a good performance when distinguishing healthy subjects from patient with mild, moderate or severe asthma, ApEnZrs has a good performance in identifying moderate asthma patient, RPDEnZrs also performs well in distinguishing patients with moderate and severe asthma.
Figure 3Complexity change in asthma. Entropy results are extracted and drawn to the same scale. Entropies of airflow, HRV and respiratory system impedance decrease associated with the disease progression. On the contrary, SampEn of airway impedance had a 2–3-fold increase in severe asthma patients. This contradiction might be explained by the way in which airway resistance is measured.