| Literature DB >> 33995984 |
Peng Lu1,2,3, Yang Gao1,3, Hao Xi1,3, Yabin Zhang1,3, Chao Gao4, Bing Zhou1,3, Hongpo Zhang3,5, Liwei Chen2, Xiaobo Mao2.
Abstract
Acquiring electrocardiographic (ECG) signals and performing arrhythmia classification in mobile device scenarios have the advantages of short response time, almost no network bandwidth consumption, and human resource savings. In recent years, deep neural networks have become a popular method to efficiently and accurately simulate nonlinear patterns of ECG data in a data-driven manner but require more resources. Therefore, it is crucial to design deep learning (DL) algorithms that are more suitable for resource-constrained mobile devices. In this paper, KecNet, a lightweight neural network construction scheme based on domain knowledge, is proposed to model ECG data by effectively leveraging signal analysis and medical knowledge. To evaluate the performance of KecNet, we use the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) protocol and the MIT-BIH arrhythmia database to classify five arrhythmia categories. The result shows that the ACC, SEN, and PRE achieve 99.31%, 99.45%, and 98.78%, respectively. In addition, it also possesses high robustness to noisy environments, low memory usage, and physical interpretability advantages. Benefiting from these advantages, KecNet can be applied in practice, especially wearable and lightweight mobile devices for arrhythmia classification.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33995984 PMCID: PMC8096590 DOI: 10.1155/2021/6684954
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1Workflow of the proposed method.
Figure 2Comparison of different window functions.
Model parameters.
| Layer | Feature map element no. | Kernel size | Stride | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sinc module | Sinc-Conv1D | 32 | 251 | 1 |
| Max-pooling | — | 2 | 2 | |
| Dropout | — | — | — | |
| BN | — | — | — | |
|
| ||||
| Conv module | Conv1D | 16 | 5 | 1 |
| 16 | 5 | 1 | ||
| Max-pooling | — | 2 | 2 | |
| Dropout | — | — | — | |
| BN | — | — | — | |
|
| ||||
| GAP | 16 + 1 | — | — | — |
| Dense | 16 | — | — | — |
| Dropout | — | — | — | — |
| Dense | 8 | — | — | |
| Softmax | 5 | — | — | — |
Heartbeat classes' mapping between the AAMI protocol and the MIT-BIH database.
| AAMI classes | MIT-BIH classes |
|---|---|
| Normal beat (N) | NOR, NE, AE, LBBB, RBBB |
| Supraventricular ectopic beat (S) | AP, APB, APC, NP, SP |
| Ventricular ectopic beat (V) | VF, VE, PVC |
| Fusion beat (F) | F |
| Unknown (Q) | UN, FPN, P |
Figure 3The percentage of ECG segments used for training and test.
Figure 4Changes in loss value and accuracy as epoch increases.
Hyperparameters of KecNet.
| Batch size | Epochs | Optimizer | Beta_1 | Beta_2 | Lr |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 128 | 60 | Adam | 0.9 | 0.999 | 0.0003 |
Performance comparison between standard convolution and Sinc-convolution.
| Convolution type | ACC (%) | SEN (%) | PRE (%) | PC | Test (ms) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard | 96.34 | 95.78 | 96.53 | 1226 | 73.2 |
| Sinc | 98.64 | 98.23 | 97.98 | 266 | 49.4 |
Comparison of models performance with the coefficient of variation.
| CV | ACC (%) | SEN (%) | PRE (%) | PC | Test (ms) |
| Without | 98.64 | 98.23 | 97.98 | 266 | 49.4 |
| With | 99.31 | 99.45 | 98.78 | 267 | 50.1 |
Comparison of model performance.
| Model | ACC (%) | SEN (%) | PRE (%) | PC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GoogleNet | 99.42 | 99.51 | 99.07 | 1326 |
| MobileNet | 97.57 | 97.29 | 97.00 | 580 |
| SqueezeNet | 97.69 | 97.23 | 97.13 | 562 |
| KecNet | 99.31 | 99.45 | 98.78 | 267 |
Figure 5Examples of KecNet and CNN filters. (a) Temporal of KecNet filters. (b) Temporal of CNN filters.
Figure 6Cumulative frequency response comparison between KecNet and standard CNN.
Examples of the frequency bandwidths extracted by KecNet.
|
| 0.7 | 1.2 | 4.4 | 10.7 | 10.1 | 23.5 |
|
| ||||||
|
| 8.5 | 7.4 | 11.7 | 51.4 | 43 | 52.1 |
Comparison of model performance under different SNRs.
| (dB) | CNN | KecNet | KecNet + CV |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 78.56 | 97.33 | 98.39 |
| 20 | 79.88 | 97.72 | 98.26 |
| 30 | 85.78 | 98.12 | 98.64 |
| 40 | 89.21 | 98.98 | 98.77 |
| 60 | 96.22 | 98.53 | 99.26 |