| Literature DB >> 35079025 |
Shuping Sun1, Tingting Huang2, Biqiang Zhang2, Peiguang He2, Long Yan2, Dongdong Fan2, Jiale Zhang2, Jinbo Chen2.
Abstract
A novel intelligent diagnostic system is proposed to diagnose heart sounds (HSs). The innovations of this system are primarily reflected in the automatic segmentation and extraction of the first complex sound [Formula: see text] and second complex sound [Formula: see text]; the automatic extraction of the secondary envelope-based diagnostic features [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text] from [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]; and the adjustable classifier models that correspond to the confidence bounds of the Chi-square ([Formula: see text]) distribution and are adjusted by the given confidence levels (denoted as [Formula: see text]). The three stages of the proposed system are summarized as follows. In stage 1, the short time modified Hilbert transform (STMHT)-based curve is used to segment and extract [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]. In stage 2, the envelopes [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] for periods [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] are obtained via a novel method, and the frequency features are automatically extracted from [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] by setting different threshold value ([Formula: see text]) lines. Finally, the first three principal components determined based on principal component analysis (PCA) are used as the diagnostic features. In stage 3, a Gaussian mixture model (GMM)-based component objective function [Formula: see text] is generated. Then, the [Formula: see text] distribution for component k is determined by calculating the Mahalanobis distance from [Formula: see text] to the class mean [Formula: see text] for component k, and the confidence region of component k is determined by adjusting the optimal confidence level [Formula: see text] and used as the criterion to diagnose HSs. The performance evaluation was validated by sounds from online HS databases and clinical heart databases. The accuracy of the proposed method was compared to the accuracies of other state-of-the-art methods, and the highest classification accuracies of [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], 99.67[Formula: see text] and 99.91[Formula: see text] in the detection of MR, MS, ASD, NM, AS, AR and VSD sounds were achieved by setting [Formula: see text] to 0.87,0.65,0.67,0.65,0.67,0.79 and 0.87, respectively.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35079025 PMCID: PMC8789933 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-04136-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Flow chart of the proposed methodology.
Figure 2Flow chart of the and extraction.
Figure 3The automatic extraction procedures for and . A-B show the procedure for an example of a typical AR from the database in[26]. C-D show the procedure for an example of a typical normal sound database[27].
Figure 4Example of feature definition and automatic extraction.
Description of the frequency domain feature matrix .
| Feature index | Feature’s symbol | Feature description | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The frequency width of | Hz | |
| 2 | The frequency width of | Hz | |
| 3 | The frequency width of | Hz | |
| 4 | The Center of gravity of | Hz | |
| 5 | The frequency width of | Hz | |
| 6 | The frequency width of | Hz | |
| 7 | The frequency width of | Hz | |
| 8 | The Center of gravity of | Hz |
Figure 5Examples of a typical normal sound and six types of typical heart disease sounds.
Figure 6Box plot representation of FF for each type of heart disease. shows the box plots for features from . In addition, represents the features from .
Eigenvector and eigenvalue for in descending order of eigenvalues.
| Features | Eigenvector (eigenvalue) in descending order of eigenvalues | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.4309 | -0.2169 | 0.0818 | -0.2179 | 0.8062 | -0.2394 | -0.0499 | 0.0616 |
|
| 0.3716 | -0.0757 | 0.5303 | 0.0431 | -0.0306 | 0.6778 | 0.2873 | -0.1735 |
|
| 0.3411 | -0.0983 | 0.5431 | 0.0444 | -0.4364 | -0.6126 | -0.1001 | -0.0375 |
|
| 0.2385 | 0.6501 | -0.0157 | -0.2122 | 0.0212 | 0.0986 | -0.5500 | -0.4031 |
|
| 0.3313 | 0.0487 | -0.2471 | 0.8958 | 0.0977 | -0.0299 | -0.0699 | -0.0944 |
|
| 0.4475 | -0.2390 | -0.2924 | -0.1628 | -0.3044 | 0.2633 | -0.3928 | 0.5607 |
|
| 0.3517 | -0.2191 | -0.5142 | -0.2650 | -0.2357 | -0.1047 | 0.3750 | -0.5353 |
|
| 0.2632 | 0.1026 | -0.0768 | -0.0662 | -0.0207 | -0.1308 | 0.5506 | 0.4386 |
Figure 7PCA results. A shows the Pareto chart of the variance by contribution of each principal component, B plots the scatter diagram of the first two components and , and C shows the first three components , and .
Figure 8Flow chart of the diagnostic determination and 3-dimensional surface classifier results.
The Gaussian mixture parameter estimates are achieved for the new features by setting the number of Gaussian mixture components as 7.
| Components | Component number | Gaussian mixture parameter estimates | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1947 | 0.7056 | 2.7126 | 1.4950 | 0.0425 | -0.0007 | 0.0013 | ||
| -0.0007 | 0.2343 | -0.0126 | ||||||
| 0.0013 | -0.0126 | 0.2122 | ||||||
| 0.0827 | 3.2981 | -2.6064 | -3.7382 | 0.3310 | -0.0094 | -0.0122 | ||
| -0.0094 | 0.3906 | -0.0210 | ||||||
| -0.0122 | -0.0210 | 0.5386 | ||||||
| 0.1130 | 2.3453 | -0.3484 | 0.5773 | 0.5373 | -0.0172 | -0.0039 | ||
| -0.0172 | 0.0608 | -0.0053 | ||||||
| -0.0039 | -0.0053 | 0.1883 | ||||||
| 0.1683 | 2.7874 | 1.8620 | -0.9829 | 0.1403 | 0.0107 | 0.0063 | ||
| 0.0107 | 0.2549 | 0.0016 | ||||||
| 0.0063 | 0.0016 | 0.1301 | ||||||
| 0.0783 | 0.7511 | 0.3199 | -0.5341 | 0.0972 | 0.0077 | -0.0161 | ||
| 0.0077 | 0.0344 | -0.0050 | ||||||
| -0.0161 | -0.0050 | 0.2634 | ||||||
| 0.2676 | -1.2294 | 0.1198 | 0.3222 | 0.3301 | -0.0011 | 0.0025 | ||
| -0.0011 | 0.0230 | 0.0005 | ||||||
| 0.0025 | 0.0005 | 0.3255 | ||||||
| 0.0954 | -0.1631 | -1.1167 | 0.9454 | 0.1338 | 0.0048 | -0.0155 | ||
| 0.0048 | 0.1449 | -0.0095 | ||||||
| -0.0155 | -0.0095 | 0.1573 | ||||||
Figure 9The achieved accuracies corresponding to classifying the heart sounds described in Sect. 2.2 by setting form 0.63 to 0.97 with a step of 0.02.
Mean () and standard deviation () of the features.
| Statistics | Frequency features ( | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Features from | Features from | |||||||
| 45.3± 11.8 | 33.1± 5.8 | 18.8± 3.6 | 80.6± 21.7 | 44.1± 23.1 | 32.2± 9.1 | 79.8±18.9 | ||
Comparative analysis of eight different methods for the diagnosis of heart diseases summarized in Table 5.
| Method | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 92.1 | 86.34 | 87.6 | 88.2 | 86.81 | 87.3 | 91.2 | 84.53 | 85.1 | 86.3 | 82.90 | 81.6 | 90.9 | 98.25 | 88.2 | 86.05 | 85.4 | 95.2 | 96.31 | 96.8 | ||
| 90.6 | 89.93 | 88.3 | 88.8 | 90.32 | 91.3 | 83.9 | 86.12 | 87.21 | 95.9 | 98.3 | 97.7 | 96.3 | 96.1 | 96.02 | 87.1 | 86.31 | 85.9 | 90.6 | 89.3 | 88.1 | |
| 90.1 | 88.6 | 87.5 | 85.1 | 85.69 | 81.3 | 80.97 | 80.8 | 93.6 | 91.95 | 90.3 | 87.9 | 85.04 | 83.3 | 92.1 | 88.69 | 85.6 | 88.6 | 86.9 | 85.9 | ||
| 90.1 | 87.34 | 86.7 | 83.2 | 86.81 | 87.3 | 90.2 | 83.13 | 82.5 | 85.7 | 81.90 | 80.6 | 91.3 | 90.40 | 90.3 | 87.2 | 84.04 | 83.4 | 96.2 | 97.66 | 97.8 | |
| 88.6 | 85.93 | 85.3 | 86.1 | 89.72 | 90.2 | 79.8 | 82.10 | 82.3 | 96.1 | 98.93 | 98.3 | 91.95 | 96.2 | 85.1 | 86.97 | 83.6 | 87.5 | 87.19 | 82.1 | ||
| 88.1 | 87.6 | 87.8 | 83.1 | 89.36 | 90.2 | 80.3 | 81.67 | 81.8 | 92.6 | 91.63 | 91.3 | 83.9 | 86.04 | 86.3 | 90.1 | 84.69 | 83.6 | 87.6 | 86.03 | 85.9 | |
| 89.7 | 91.64 | 92.1 | 85.2 | 83.52 | 83.3 | 86.3 | 87.49 | 87.6 | 93.7 | 91.61 | 90.9 | 90.1 | 87.05 | 86.7 | 85.2 | 82.21 | 81.6 | 90.8 | 91.63 | 91.7 | |
| This | 100 | 99.43 | 99.3 | 99.2 | 98.93 | 98.9 | 99.6 | 99.13 | 99.1 | 100 | 99.85 | 99.8 | 98.8 | 98.62 | 98.6 | 100 | 99.67 | 99.6 | 100 | 99.91 | 99.9 |
Experimental sounds used to evaluate the performance.
| Data source | Period numbers of every type of heart disease/Patients | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sounds in Sect. | 769/10 | 439/5 | 315/7 | 1056/45 | 381/10 | 665/15 | 327/10 |
| New sounds | 156/3 | 132/2 | 82/2 | 183/8 | 126/3 | 153/4 | 70/3 |
| Total sounds | 925/13 | 571/7 | 397/9 | 1239/53 | 507/13 | 818/19 | 397/13 |
Efficient methods successfully used in diagnosing normal sounds from other common heart diseases.
| Method | Year | Performance evaluation |
|---|---|---|
| 2021 | The Fano-factor constrained tunable quality wavelet transform (TQWT) was the sensitivity and specificity of | |
| 2021 | This study proposed a heart sound classification method based on improved MFCC features and convolutional recurrent neural networks, which achieved classification accuracy of | |
| 2020 | A deep WaveNet model was proposed to classify five heart sound types and achieve high classification accuracies: | |
| 2018 | The higher CA, achieved in this study, was | |
| 2017 | A rule-based classification tree method proposed by this study achieved very high CA: | |
| 2016 | Artificial neural networks (ANNs) was reported to achieve the second-best score compared to the other methods in classifying the phonocardiogram recordings provided by the CinC Challenge. | |
| 2016 | Random forest, a meta-learning approach that uses multiple random decision trees as base learners and aggregates them to compute the final ensemble prediction, was successfully used in sound classification such as studies. |
The highest accuracies corresponding to the parameters set in every state-of-the-art method.
| Method | Performance evaluation |
|---|---|
| The highest classification accuracies were obtained by using the features described in Table | |
| The highest classification accuracies were obtained by using the 13-features extracted using MFCC algorithm. | |
| The highest classification accuracies were obtained by using the porposed WaveNet model consists of 6 residual blocks. | |
| The highest classification accuracies were obtained based on the rules described in a previous study[ | |
| The highest CA results were obtained based on the following rules. | |
| Rule 1: If the | |
| Rule 2: If | |
| Rule 3: If | |
| Rule 4: If | |
| Rule 5: If | |
| Rule 6: If | |
| Rule 7: If | |
| Rule 8: If none of these conditions are met, the | |
| The most accurate results were obtained by the structure consisting of one input layer with 60 neurons, one hidden layer with 11 neurons and one output layer with five neurons. | |
| The most accurate results were obtained by setting the number of features at each node, the number of trees and the maximum depth of trees to 1, 108, and 36, respectively. | |
| This method | The most accurate results were obtained for the diagnosis of |
Figure 10An example of a AR sound from database[26].