| Literature DB >> 34206540 |
Yoon-A Choi1, Se-Jin Park2, Jong-Arm Jun3, Cheol-Sig Pyo3, Kang-Hee Cho4, Han-Sung Lee5, Jae-Hak Yu3.
Abstract
The emergence of an aging society is inevitable due to the continued increases in life expectancy and decreases in birth rate. These social changes require new smart healthcare services for use in daily life, and COVID-19 has also led to a contactless trend necessitating more non-face-to-face health services. Due to the improvements that have been achieved in healthcare technologies, an increasing number of studies have attempted to predict and analyze certain diseases in advance. Research on stroke diseases is actively underway, particularly with the aging population. Stroke, which is fatal to the elderly, is a disease that requires continuous medical observation and monitoring, as its recurrence rate and mortality rate are very high. Most studies examining stroke disease to date have used MRI or CT images for simple classification. This clinical approach (imaging) is expensive and time-consuming while requiring bulky equipment. Recently, there has been increasing interest in using non-invasive measurable EEGs to compensate for these shortcomings. However, the prediction algorithms and processing procedures are both time-consuming because the raw data needs to be separated before the specific attributes can be obtained. Therefore, in this paper, we propose a new methodology that allows for the immediate application of deep learning models on raw EEG data without using the frequency properties of EEG. This proposed deep learning-based stroke disease prediction model was developed and trained with data collected from real-time EEG sensors. We implemented and compared different deep-learning models (LSTM, Bidirectional LSTM, CNN-LSTM, and CNN-Bidirectional LSTM) that are specialized in time series data classification and prediction. The experimental results confirmed that the raw EEG data, when wielded by the CNN-bidirectional LSTM model, can predict stroke with 94.0% accuracy with low FPR (6.0%) and FNR (5.7%), thus showing high confidence in our system. These experimental results demonstrate the feasibility of non-invasive methods that can easily measure brain waves alone to predict and monitor stroke diseases in real time during daily life. These findings are expected to lead to significant improvements for early stroke detection with reduced cost and discomfort compared to other measuring techniques.Entities:
Keywords: bidirectional; convolutional neural network (CNN); deep learning; electroencephalography (EEG); ensemble; long short-term memory (LSTM); stroke disease analysis; stroke prediction
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34206540 PMCID: PMC8271462 DOI: 10.3390/s21134269
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Elderly stroke monitoring system based on deep learning using bio signals (* MVCU: multi vital-signals collector units).
Figure 2Six-channel measurement and collection locations of EEG vital-signals.
Figure 3Raw EEG signal samples: (a) Raw EEG signals from elderly stroke patients; (b) Raw EEG signal samples from control group.
Figure 4Stroke prediction module structure based on deep learning.
Figure 5The architecture of the four deep learning models used in the experiment: (a) LSTM; (b) Bidirectional LSTM; (c) CNN–LSTM; (d) CNN-Bidirectional LSTM.
Detailed descriptions of newly defined and extracted EEG attributes.
| Frequency Band | Meaning and Description |
|---|---|
| Delta | Delta power (1~4 Hz) |
| Theta | Theta power (4~8 Hz) |
| Alpha | Alpha power (8~13 Hz) |
| Beta | Beta power (14~30 Hz) |
| Gamma | Gamma power (30 Hz or more) |
| Low Beta | Low beta power (12~25 Hz) |
| High Beta | High beta power (25~30 Hz) |
| Theta to Beta | The value of the beta ratio in theta (extracting abnormal theta waves) |
| DAR | Ratio of mean power (delta/alpha) |
| IDAR | Inverse ratio of DAR (alpha/delta) |
| PRI | Power ratio index (delta+theta to alpha+beta), Low frequency to high frequency |
Confusion matrix for performance evaluation.
| True | Stroke | Normal | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Predicted | |||
|
|
| ||
|
| |||
1 TP (True Positive): Indicator predicting stroke elderly as stroke elderly. 2 FP (False Positive): Indicator predicting stroke elderly as general elderly (normal). 3 FN (False Negative): Indicator predicting general elderly (normal) as stroke elderly. 4 TN (True Negative): Indicator predicting general elderly (normal) as general elderly.
DL models’ accuracy, precision, and F1-score based on raw values.
| Evaluation | Models | Accuracy | Precision | F1-Score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data Sets | |||||
| Raw data | LSTM | 70.1 | 67.9 | 75.4 | |
| Bidirectional LSTM | 91.8 | 85.3 | 91.7 | ||
| CNN-LSTM | 93.7 | 96.6 | 93.7 | ||
| CNN-Bidirectional LSTM | 94.0 | 94.6 | 94.1 | ||
DL models’ sensitivity, specificity, FPR, and FNR based on raw values.
| Evaluation | Models | Sensitivity | Specificity | FPR 1 | FNR 2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data Sets | ||||||
| Raw data | LSTM | 90.2 | 50.2 | 49.8 | 9.9 | |
| Bidirectional LSTM | 90.4 | 93.5 | 6.5 | 9.6 | ||
| CNN-LSTM | 91.9 | 96.1 | 3.9 | 8.1 | ||
| CNN-Bidirectional LSTM | 94.0 | 94.3 | 6.0 | 5.7 | ||
1 FPR (False Positive Rate): Indicator of the percentage of general elderly (normal) expected to be stroke elderly. 2 FNP (False Negative Rate): Indicator of the percentage of stroke elderly predicted as general elderly (normal).
DL models’ accuracy, precision, and F1-score based on power values.
| Evaluation | Models | Accuracy | Precision | F1-Score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data Sets | |||||
| Power value | LSTM | 69.5 | 69.5 | 68.8 | |
| Bidirectional LSTM | 79.5 | 76.4 | 80.8 | ||
| CNN-LSTM | 74.7 | 71.4 | 77.3 | ||
| CNN-Bidirectional LSTM | 81.4 | 80.8 | 80.1 | ||
DL models’ sensitivity, specificity, FPR, and FNR based on power values.
| Evaluation | Models | Sensitivity | Specificity | FPR | FNR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data Sets | ||||||
| Power value | LSTM | 73.8 | 64.2 | 35.8 | 26.2 | |
| Bidirectional LSTM | 88.3 | 70.8 | 29.2 | 11.7 | ||
| CNN-LSTM | 86.8 | 65.1 | 34.9 | 13.2 | ||
| CNN-Bidirectional LSTM | 82.7 | 81.5 | 18.5 | 17.3 | ||
DL models’ accuracy, precision, and F1-score based on relative values.
| Evaluation | Models | Accuracy | Precision | F1-Score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data Sets | |||||
| Relative value | LSTM | 81.0 | 82.8 | 80.7 | |
| Bidirectional LSTM | 89.2 | 86.9 | 88.8 | ||
| CNN-LSTM | 84.0 | 82.4 | 83.7 | ||
| CNN-Bidirectional LSTM | 86.2 | 87.3 | 85.8 | ||
DL models’ sensitivity, specificity, FPR, and FNR based on relative values.
| Evaluation | Models | Sensitivity | Specificity | FPR | FNR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data Sets | ||||||
| Relative value | LSTM | 79.3 | 82.5 | 17.5 | 20.7 | |
| Bidirectional LSTM | 91.6 | 87.5 | 12.5 | 8.4 | ||
| CNN-LSTM | 85.2 | 87.3 | 12.7 | 14.8 | ||
| CNN-Bidirectional LSTM | 86.0 | 83.1 | 17.0 | 14.0 | ||
Figure 6The ROC curve of the CNN-bidirectional LSTM model using raw EEG bio signals.
Hyper-parameters of each model.
| Data Sets | Models | Learning Rate | Batch Size | Epoch | Optimizer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw | LSTM | 0.01 | 64 | 50 | Adam |
| Bidirectional LSTM | 0.001 | 128 | 100 | ” | |
| CNN- LSTM | 0.01 | 64 | 200 | ” | |
| CNN-Bidirectional LSTM | 0.001 | 64 | 500 | ” | |
| Power | LSTM | 0.0001 | 64 | 300 | ” |
| Bidirectional LSTM | 0.001 | 32 | 300 | ” | |
| CNN- LSTM | 0.01 | 128 | 500 | ” | |
| CNN-Bidirectional LSTM | 0.001 | 64 | 500 | ” | |
| Relative | LSTM | 0.0001 | 128 | 500 | ” |
| Bidirectional LSTM | 0.001 | 32 | 300 | ” | |
| CNN- LSTM | 0.001 | 64 | 300 | ” | |
| CNN-Bidirectional LSTM | 0.01 | 64 | 300 | ” |