| Literature DB >> 34497664 |
Guoliang Yao1, Xiaobo Mao1, Nan Li1, Huaxing Xu1, Xiangyang Xu1, Yi Jiao1, Jinhong Ni1.
Abstract
The diagnosis of electrocardiogram (ECG) is extremely onerous and inefficient, so it is necessary to use a computer-aided diagnosis of ECG signals. However, it is still a challenging problem to design high-accuracy ECG algorithms suitable for the medical field. In this paper, a classification method is proposed to classify ECG signals. Firstly, wavelet transform is used to denoise the original data, and data enhancement technology is used to overcome the problem of an unbalanced dataset. Secondly, an integrated convolutional neural network (CNN) and gated recurrent unit (GRU) classifier is proposed. The proposed network consists of a convolution layer, followed by 6 local feature extraction modules (LFEM), a GRU, and a Dense layer and a Softmax layer. Finally, the processed data were input into the CNN-GRU network into five categories: nonectopic beats, supraventricular ectopic beats, ventricular ectopic beats, fusion beats, and unknown beats. The MIT-BIH arrhythmia database was used to evaluate the approach, and the average sensitivity, accuracy, and F1-score of the network for 5 types of ECG were 99.33%, 99.61%, and 99.42%. The evaluation criteria of the proposed method are superior to other state-of-the-art methods, and this model can be applied to wearable devices to achieve high-precision monitoring of ECG.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34497664 PMCID: PMC8421156 DOI: 10.1155/2021/6534942
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Summary of the heartbeats. Reproduced with permission from Rajesh and Dhuli [14].
| The AAMI heartbeat class description | Annotations of MIT-BIH heartbeats |
|---|---|
| Nonectopic beats (N) | Normal beats |
| Left bundle branch block beats | |
| Right bundle branch block beats | |
| Nodal (junctional) escape beats | |
| Atrial escape beats | |
| Supraventricular ectopic beats (S) | Aberrated atrial premature beats |
| Supraventricular premature beats | |
| Atrial premature contraction | |
| Nodal (junctional) premature beats | |
| Ventricular ectopic beats (V) | Ventricular flutter wave |
| Ventricular escape beats | |
| Premature ventricular contraction | |
| Fusion beats (F) | Fusion of ventricular and normal |
| Beats | |
| Unknown beats (Q) | Paced beats |
| Unclassifiable beats | |
| Fusion of paced and normal beats |
Figure 1Signal before and after denoising comparison. There is a noise interference signal in the original signal, and this process reduces the influence of the noise signal on the classification process.
Figure 2The architecture of the proposed model.
The output shape of the main module.
| The name of the module | Output |
|---|---|
| Input | 186∗1 |
| Conv | 186∗32 |
| LFEM1 | 93∗64 |
| LFEM2 | 47∗64 |
| LFEM3 | 24∗128 |
| LFEM4 | 12∗128 |
| LFEM5 | 6∗256 |
| LFEM6 | 3∗256 |
| Reshape | 1∗768 |
| GRU | 1∗768 |
| Dense | 96 |
| Softmax | 5 |
Figure 3GRU model.
Figure 4The internal structure of GRU.
Comparison of accuracy of different CNN structures.
| The types of CNN structures | D1 | D2 | D3 | D4 | D5 | S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average accuracy after 10 training sessions (%) | 96.33 | 97.45 | 98.84 | 98.73 | 98.78 | 94.99 | 95.78 | 96.73 | 97.21 | 97.15 |
Figure 5The proposed data enhancement technique and the influence of GRU on sensitivity.
Figure 6Confusion matrix for the proposed model.
Figure 7The ROC of the proposed model.
Figure 8Accuracy curve of ECG classification.
Figure 9Loss curve of ECG classification.
Accuracy comparison between CNN-LSTM and CNN-GRU.
| Classifier | Accuracy (%) | Sensitivity (%) | F1-score (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| CNN-LSTM | 99.02 | 99.05 | 98.87 |
| CNN-GRU | 99.61 | 99.33 | 99.42 |
Comparison of the proposed network and state-of-the-art methods.
| Work | Accuracy (%) | Sensitivity (%) | F1-score (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun et al. [ | 97.55 | 97.05 | 97.44 |
| Acharya et al. [ | 93.50 | 93.35 | 93.41 |
| Hannun et al. [ | 94.95 | 95.46 | 94.91 |
| Ihsanto et al. [ | 99.02 | 76.32 | 80.97 |
| Proposed model | 99.61 | 99.33 | 99.42 |