| Literature DB >> 33584882 |
Abdullah Jafari Chashmi1, Mehdi Chehel Amirani1.
Abstract
Primary recognition of heart diseases by exploiting computer aided diagnosis (CAD) machines, decreases the vast rate of fatality among cardiac patients. Recognition of heart abnormalities is a staggering task because the low changes in ECG signals may not be exactly specified with eyesight. In this paper, an efficient approach for ECG arrhythmia diagnosis is proposed based on a combination of discrete wavelet transform and higher order statistics feature extraction and entropy based feature selection methods. Using the neural network and support vector machine, five classes of heartbeat categories are classified. Applying the neural network and support vector machine method, our proposed system is able to classify the arrhythmia classes with high accuracy (99.83%) and (99.03%), respectively. The advantage of the presented procedure has been experimentally demonstrated compared to the other recently presented methods in terms of accuracy.Entities:
Keywords: ECG; classification; entropy; feature extraction; feature selection
Year: 2019 PMID: 33584882 PMCID: PMC7531205 DOI: 10.2478/joeb-2019-0007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Electr Bioimpedance ISSN: 1891-5469
A summary table of ECG heartbeats classified as per ANSI/AAMI EC57:1998 standard [25].
| Non-ectopic (N) | Supraventricular (S) | Ventricular (V) | Fusion (F) | Unknown (U) | |
| Normal (N) | Aberrated atrial premature (A) | Ventricular escape (V) | Fusion of ventricular and normal (F) | Unclassifiable (U) | |
| Left bundle branch block (LBBB) | Atrial premature (a) | Premature ventricular contraction (E) | Paced (p) | ||
| Right bundle branch block (RBBB) | Supraventricular premature (S) | Fusion of paced and normal (f) | |||
| Nodal (junctional) escape (j) | Nodal (junctional) premature (J) | ||||
| Atrial escape beat (e) | |||||
Fig. 1Block diagram of the proposed technique.
Fig. 2Example of five different categories of heartbeats that are denoised and segmented.
Classification results of the proposed methods with the two different classifiers.
| Classifier | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| SVM-RBF | 99.57 | 99.89 | 99.83 |
| NN | 97.58 | 99.39 | 99.03 |
– Comparison of the classification efficiency of the proposed method and some of studies performed based on the same database.
| Literature | year | Features | Classifier | Classes | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Martis et al. [ | 2012 | PCA | SVM-RBF | 5 | 98.11% |
| Martis et al. [ | 2013 | DWT + PCA | SVM-RBF | 5 | 96.92% |
| DWT + PCA | NN | 5 | 98.78% | ||
| Osowski and Linh [ | 2001 | HOS | Hybrid fuzzy | 7 | 96.06% |
| NN | |||||
| Martis et al. [ | 2013 | Cumulant + PCA | NN | 5 | 94.52% |
| Elhaj et al. [ | 2016 | PCA + DWT + HOS + | SVM-RBF | 5 | 98.91% |
| ICA | |||||
| NN | 5 | 98.90% | |||
| Acharya et al [ | 2017 | Raw data | CNN | 5 | 94.03 |
| Yang et al. [ | 2018 | PCAnet | Linear SVM | 5 | 97.94 |
| Oh et al. [ | 2018 | Raw data | CNN-LSTM | 5 | 98.10 |
| Proposed | DWT+HOS | SVM-RBF | 5 | 99.83 | |
| NN | 5 | 99.03 |