| Literature DB >> 34194537 |
Peng Lu1,2,3, Yabin Zhang1,2, Bing Zhou1,2, Hongpo Zhang2,4, Liwei Chen3,5, Yusong Lin1,2, Xiaobo Mao3, Yang Gao1,2, Hao Xi1,2.
Abstract
In recent years, deep learning (DNN) based methods have made leapfrogging level breakthroughs in detecting cardiac arrhythmias as the cost effectiveness of arithmetic power, and data size has broken through the tipping point. However, the inability of these methods to provide a basis for modeling decisions limits clinicians' confidence on such methods. In this paper, a Gate Recurrent Unit (GRU) and decision tree fusion model, referred to as (T-GRU), was designed to explore the problem of arrhythmia recognition and to improve the credibility of deep learning methods. The fusion model multipathway processing time-frequency domain featured the introduction of decision tree probability analysis of frequency domain features, the regularization of GRU model parameters and weight control to improve the decision tree model output weights. The MIT-BIH arrhythmia database was used for validation. Results showed that the low-frequency band features dominated the model prediction. The fusion model had an accuracy of 98.31%, sensitivity of 96.85%, specificity of 98.81%, and precision of 96.73%, indicating its high reliability and clinical significance.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34194537 PMCID: PMC8181111 DOI: 10.1155/2021/6665357
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Figure 1Comparison of denoising results.
Figure 2R-peak detection position.
Figure 3Diagram of some types of heartbeat.
Five types of heartbeat data.
| MIT database heartbeat comment information | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| AAMI provision of the heartbeat category | N | Normal beat | 90081 |
| Left bundle branch block beat | |||
| Right bundle branch block beat | |||
| Nodal (junctional) escape beat | |||
| Atrial escape beat | |||
| S | Aberrated atrial premature beat | 2781 | |
| Nodal (junctional) premature beat | |||
| Atrial premature beat | |||
| Premature or ectopic supraventricular beat | |||
| V | Premature ventricular contraction | 7008 | |
| Ventricular escape beat | |||
| F | Fusion of ventricular and normal beat | 802 | |
| Q | Paced beat | 72 | |
| Unclassifiable beat | |||
| Fusion of paced and normal beat | |||
Figure 4Example of subband segmentation.
Figure 5Schematic of the fusion model. The leftmost part of the diagram is the GRU model dealing with time-domain sequences, the middle part is the CNN model of the fusion network learning GRU weights, and the rightmost part is the decision tree model dealing with frequency domain data.
Figure 6GRU model.
Figure 7GRU unit structure.
Algorithm 1Incremental algorithm.
Figure 8Convergence network CNN.
Figure 9GRU training result chart: (a) training loss value; (b) overall Acc and individual Acc values.
Classification accuracy of different cell.
| Cell | 8 | 16 | 32 | 64 | 128 | 256 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acc (%) | 96.13 | 96.56 | 97.21 | 97.52 | 97.31 | 97.26 |
Classification accuracy of different batch sizes.
| Batch_size | 16 | 32 | 64 | 128 | 256 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acc (%) | 83.1 | 85.21 | 94.32 | 97.36 | 92.23 |
Figure 10Global characterization of the frequency domain.
Classification performance evaluation of different frequency bands.
| Frequency band | Sen (%) | Spe (%) | Pre (%) | Acc (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 81.23 | 76.02 | 85.37 | 92.23 |
| 25 | 90.11 | 82.73 | 89.61 | 95.19 |
| 45 | 93.23 | 91.02 | 91.17 | 95.21 |
| 65 | 93.03 | 91.46 | 91.35 | 95.25 |
| 85 | 93.47 | 91.77 | 91.37 | 95.26 |
| 105 | 93.61 | 91.75 | 91.42 | 95.31 |
| 125 | 93.63 | 92.15 | 91.59 | 95.34 |
Influence of frequency domain feature segmentation on classification performance.
| Segmentation | Sen (%) | Spe (%) | Pre (%) | Acc (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| With | 93.68 | 92.23 | 91.65 | 95.41 |
| Without | 93.59 | 92.17 | 91.60 | 95.32 |
The effect of incremental algorithm on classification performance.
| Algorithm | Sen (%) | Spe (%) | Pre (%) | Acc (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Incremental | 95.03 | 94.43 | 93.07 | 96.68 |
| Without incremental | 93.67 | 92.19 | 91.71 | 95.43 |
Overall classification performance.
| Algorithm | Sen (%) | Spe (%) | Pre (%) | Acc (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tree | 95.07 | 94.46 | 93.05 | 96.67 |
| GRU | 95.9 | 94.72 | 96.33 | 97.52 |
| T-GRU | 96.85 | 98.81 | 96.73 | 98.31 |
Comparison of related work.
| Works | AAMI | Classes | Methods | Acc | Sen | Pre |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zhao et al. [ | Yes | 4 | ResNet | 98.37 | 97.68 | 93.01 |
| Liu et al. [ | Yes | 4 | CNN + LRSVM | 95.63 | 68.72 | 81.46 |
| Zhou et al. [ | Yes | 5 | LSTM | 98.02 | 90.14 | 88.03 |
| Shan et al. [ | No | 5 | 2D-CNN | 97.56 | 95.97 | 95.61 |
| Gad et al. [ | No | 2 | DSNT + SVM | 92.16 | 51.93 | 59.53 |
| Li et al. [ | Yes | 5 | WPE + RF | 95.63 | 78.79 | 91.51 |
| Emina et al. [ | No | 4 | DWT + RF | 99.33 |
|
|
| Sena et al. [ | No | 3 | CNN | 97.75 | 95.42 | 94.3 |
| Qin et al. [ | No | 6 | WMRA + SVM | 94.64 | 62.81 | 77.41 |
| Amna et al. [ | Yes | 3 | ESBMM + CNN | 93.58 | — | — |
| Our work | Yes | 4 | T-GRU | 98.31 | 96.85 | 96.73 |