| Literature DB >> 35402563 |
Ping Xiong1, Simon Ming-Yuen Lee1, Ging Chan1,2.
Abstract
Myocardial infarction is a common cardiovascular disorder caused by prolonged ischemia, and early diagnosis of myocardial infarction (MI) is critical for lifesaving. ECG is a simple and non-invasive approach in MI detection, localization, diagnosis, and prognosis. Population-based screening with ECG can detect MI early and help prevent it but this method is too labor-intensive and time-consuming to carry out in practice unless artificial intelligence (AI) would be able to reduce the workload. Recent advances in using deep learning (DL) for ECG screening might rekindle this hope. This review aims to take stock of 59 major DL studies applied to the ECG for MI detection and localization published in recent 5 years, covering convolutional neural network (CNN), long short-term memory (LSTM), convolutional recurrent neural network (CRNN), gated recurrent unit (GRU), residual neural network (ResNet), and autoencoder (AE). In this period, CNN obtained the best popularity in both MI detection and localization, and the highest performance has been obtained from CNN and ResNet model. The reported maximum accuracies of the six different methods are all beyond 97%. Considering the usage of different datasets and ECG leads, the network that trained on 12 leads ECG data of PTB database has obtained higher accuracy than that on smaller number leads data of other datasets. In addition, some limitations and challenges of the DL techniques are also discussed in this review.Entities:
Keywords: deep learning; electrocardiogram (ECG); myocardial infarction detection; myocardial infarction localization; neural networks
Year: 2022 PMID: 35402563 PMCID: PMC8990170 DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.860032
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med ISSN: 2297-055X
Figure 1Overview of coronary arteries structure and ECG 12 leads (A). The ECG characteristics of normal sinus rhythm (B) and myocardial infarction (MI) (C).
Different myocardial infarction (MI) localizations and corresponding leads and culprit coronary arteries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antero-Lateral (ALM) | V3 ~ V6, I, aVL | None | None | LAD |
| Anterior (AMI) | V1 ~ V6 | III and aVF | Hyperacute T waves | LAD |
| Antero-Septal (ASMI) | V1, V2, V3, or V4 | None | Q waves in V1–V3 precordial leads | LAD |
| Septal | V1 and V2 | None | None | LAD-Septal branches |
| Lateral (LMI) | I, aVL,V5, and V6 | II,III, aVF | None | LAD and LCx |
| Inferior (IMI) | II, III, aVF | I, aVL (sensitive marker) | Hyperacute T waves | RCA (80%) or RCx (20%) |
| Posterior (PMI) | Require the extra leads V7–V9 ( | High R in V1–V3 with ST depression V1–V3 > 2 mm (mirror view) | Terminal T-wave inversion becomes an upright T wave | RCA or LCx |
LAD, left anterior descending coronary artery; RCA, right coronary artery; RCx or RCX, ramus circumflex artery; LCx or LCX, left circumflex artery.
Recent conventional machine learning methods for MI detection and localization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| ( | 2016 | DWT | SVM | 35 | 95.30 | 94.6 | 96.0 | 5 | 98.1 | ||
| ( | 2017 | FFPSO | LMNN | 99.3 | 99.97 | 98.7 | |||||
| ( | 2016 | DWT and DCT | KNN | 47 | 98.80 | 99.45 | 96.27 | 10 | 98.74 | 99.55 | 99.16 |
| ( | 2018 | SWT and sample entropy | KNN | 98.69 | 98.67 | 98.72 | |||||
| SVM | 98.84 | 99.35 | 98.29 | ||||||||
| ( | 2018 | PCA | SVM | 96.66 | 96.66 | 96.66 | |||||
| ( | 2019 | FBSE-EWT | LSSVM | 108 | 99.97 | 100 | 99.95 | ||||
| ( | 2021 | SVM | 24 temporal, | 97.00 | 97.33 | 96.67 | |||||
| ( | 2020 | DWT, PCA | NN | 28 (detection) | 98.21 | 97.5 | 98.01 | 6 | 98.22 | 98.14 | 99.40 |
| ( | 2012 | Time-Domain | KNN | 36 | 99.97 | 99.90 | 10 | 96.72 | 97.11 | ||
DWT, Discrete wavelet transform; FFPSO, Hybrid Firefly and Particle Swarm Optimization algorithm; DCT, Discrete cosine transform; SWT, Stationary wavelet transform; PCA, Principal component analysis; FBSE-EWT, Fourier–Bessel series expansion-based empirical wavelet transform; LMNN, Levenberg Marquardt neural network; LSSVM, The least square-support vector machine; Acc, Accuracy; Sen, Sensitivity; Spec, Specificity; Nc, Number of classes.
Figure 2Timeline of technology advances of feature extraction and classification methods for MI diagnosis.
Figure 3Flow diagram of paper selection.
Properties of the collected databases used in the research of MI detection and location.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PTB ( | Germany | 2000 | 47 | 15 leads ECG are included | Small sample size | ||
| The LTST ( | Slovenia | 2003–2007 | 2 | All 86 data are supplied with detailed annotations and ST deviation trend plots | Data sample size is small | ||
| PTB-XL ( | 1989–1996 | 1 | 12-lead | The to-date largest freely accessible clinical 12-lead ECG-waveform dataset |
| ||
| ESCDB ( | The European Community | 1985 | 1 | Lead 3 (L3) and Lead 5 (L5) | Beat by beat annotations are included | Only 2 leads are included and small sample size | |
| ECG-ViEW II ( | South Korea | 1994–2013 | 1 | Based on real-world clinical practice data of patients who have taken medicines to treat various diseases | The algorithms of calculating ECG, parameters were not upgraded in the period of collecting time |
| |
| STAFFIII ( | USA | 1995–1996 | 2 | It accounted for inter-patient variability in reaction to prolonged balloon inflation as well as variability of heart rhythm and waveform morphology |
Np, number of papers.
Figure 4The number of leads used in investigated articles (A). The proportion of the usage of single lead especially the lead II ECG signals is the highest for MI detection, even higher than the standard 12-lead ECG signals. It is because this limb lead is coaxial to the cardiac conduction, the ECG signal in lead II has the largest forward waveform amplitude and the clearest waveform amplitude, so it can provide good ECG morphological information for MI detection (74). Furthermore, for the objective of MI localization, only 12-lead ECG data can provide comprehensive information and reflect different regions of the heart, so standard 12 lead ECG signals are employed in most research of MI localization. Percentage of metrics used in reviewed papers (B). Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity are the three major metrics. Accuracy, which is considered in 79.7% of the articles, is the most frequently used metric, followed by sensitivity and specificity, with rates of 76.3 and 66.1%, respectively. Less than 20% of authors have considered AUC. Distribution of data splitting methods in MI diagnosis (C). They contain k-fold cross-validation (CV) such as ten- and five-folds, train-test separation such as 90:10 and 80:20%, and train-validation-test separation such as 70:15:15 and 60:10:30%. It shows tenfold CV is the most popular data splitting method, which has been considered in 20 articles.
Figure 5Percentages on different deep learning (DL)-based models for MI detection (A) and localization (B). Convolutional neural network (CNN) is the most common technique used for both MI detection (with 60% contribution) and localization (with 58% contribution). Convolutional recurrent neural network (CRNN) (for MI detection) and ResNet (for MI localization) are the next most frequently used learning techniques in articles. Distribution of articles focused on each DL method in recent 5 years (C). This figure shows the usage changes over the years of the six methods. Another four types of DL methods have been emerged for MI diagnoses from 2019 compared to that in 2018, while only CNN and CRNN were used in 2017 and 2018. CNN dominated the model categories in each year, and the proportion of CNN shows a gradual upward trend from 2019 to 2021 (33, 47, and 79 in 2019, 2020, and 2021, respectively).
Properties of some notable convolutional neural network (CNN)-based ECG MI detection and localization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
| ( | 2017 | PTB, lead II | 11-layer | 10-fold CV | Acc = 95.22% | Intra-patient analysis | |
| ( | 2018 | LTST, 2 or 3 leads | Pretrained model: Google's Inception V3 | 80:10:10% | AUC = 89.6% | NR | |
| ( | 2018 | PTB, lead II | 13-layer CNN: | 10-folds CV | Acc = 99.34% | NR | |
| ( | 2018 | PTB | Multi-lead CNN (ML-CNN) | 5 folds CV | Acc = 96.00% | NR | |
| ( | 2018 | PTB, 12 leads | Multiple-Feature-Branch Convolutional Neural Network (MFB-CNN) | NR | Inter- and intra-patient analysis | ||
| ( | 2018 | PTB | Multi-Channel Lightweight Convolutional Neural Network (MCL-CNN) | NR | AUC = 95.50% | NR | |
| ( | 2018 | PTB | Three inception blocks | NR | Acc = 84.54% | NR | |
| ( | 2019 | PTB | The lightweight CNN-like model (PCANet) | 5 folds CV | Inter- and intra-patient analysis | ||
| ( | 2019 | PTB, 12 leads | 10-layer | 70:15:15% | Overall Acc = 99.78% | NR | |
| ( | 2019 | PTB | 20 layers | 10-fold CV | Acc = 93.53% | NR | |
| ( | 2019 | PTB, 12 leads | Multichannel 1-D shallow CNN as classifier | 70:30% | Acc = 99.84%(Seven classes) | NR | |
| ( | 2019 | Training: 483 MI, 474 non-MI | CNN-based | 7-fold CV | Acc = 94.73% | NR | |
| ( | 2020 | ECG and MRI | CNN with fully connected feedforward network | 6-fold CV | AUC = 0.89 | Intra- and inter-patient analysis | |
| ( | 2020 | PTB, 12 leads | 6 layers CNN | 10 different training/ | F1-score = 83% | NR | |
| ( | 2020 | PTB, Lead II | DenseNet | Intra-patient: 10 folds CV | Intra- and inter-patient analysis | ||
| ( | 2020 | PTB, Lead II | Binary Convolutional Neural Network (BCNN) | 10 folds CV | Acc = 90.29% | NR | |
| ( | 2020 | ECG-VIEW II | 16 layers CNN | 10 folds CV | Acc = 91.1% | NR | |
| ( | 2020 | PTB, Lead II | Pre-trained VGG-Net | 10 folds CV | Acc = 99.22% | NR | |
| ( | 2020 | PTB, Leads v2, v3, v5, and aVL | Multi-Channel Lightweight Convolutional Neural Network (MCL-CNN) | 10 folds CV | Acc = 96.65% | NR | |
| ( | 2021 | PTB Lead II | 22-layer CNN model | 5 folds CV | Acc = 98.84% | NR | |
| ( | 2021 | GGH and GCI datasets, 12 leads | CNN based feature extraction | NR | AUC = 94% (Prediction of occurrence- time in MI) | NR | |
| ( | 2021 | PTB | 10 layers CNN | 10 folds CV | Ppv = 99.58% | NR | |
| ( | 2021 | PTB | 7 layers deep CNN | NR | Sen = 99.88 % | NR | |
| ( | 2021 | PTB | 11-layer CNN | 10 folds CV | Acc = 99.84% | NR | |
| ( | 2021 | PTB-XL and private dataset | 10 NNs with same parameters but different initializations | NR | AUC: LMI: 0.969, IMI: 0.973 | NR | |
| ( | 2021 | PTB, 15 leads | ConvNetQuake, (8 layers CNN) | NR | Intra- and inter-patient analysis | ||
| ( | 2021 | PTB | 12 lead-branch CNN | 5 folds CV | Acc = 95.76% | Acc = 61.82% | NR |
| ( | 2021 | PTB | DenseNet to obtain key features | 10 folds CV | Acc = 99.87% | NR | |
| ( | 2021 | ESCDB lead L3 | 2-D CNN | Dataset1 (DS1), DS2, and DS3.1 for intra- analysis | Acc = 99.26% | Intra- and inter-patient analysis | |
| ( | 2021 | PTB | Multi-channel multi-scale deep CNN | 10-fold CV | Acc = 99.58% | Acc = 99.86% | NR |
| ( | 2021 | PTB | MI-CNN (For detection) | 10-fold CV | Acc = 99.51% | Ppv = 99.25% | NR |
(*) This means the model performance in this article is better than another one. HC, healthy control; CV, cross-validation; NR, not reported; ALMI, Antero-lateral myocardial infarction; AMI, Anterior myocardial infarction; ASMI, Antero-septal myocardial infarction; LMI, Lateral myocardial infarction; IMI, Inferior myocardial infarction.
Properties of some notable long short-term memory (LSTM)-based ECG MI detection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| ( | 2019 | PTB, 8 leads | LSTM | 90:10% | 99.91 | NR | ||||
| ( | 2019 | PTB, 12 leads | Bi-LSTM | 70:30% | 94.77 | 95.58 | 90.48 | NR | ||
| ( | 2019 | PTB | Standard RNN | 80:20% | 91 | 91 | 0.90 | NR | ||
| ( | 2019 | PTB | RNN | 90:10% | 97.56 | 98.49 | 97.97 | 95.67 | 96.32% | NR |
| ( | 2021 | PTB, Lead II | 3 layers LSTM | 10 folds CV | 89.56 | 91.88 | 80.81 | Inter- and intra-patient analysis | ||
Properties of some notable convolutional recurrent neural network (CRNN)-based ECG MI detection and localization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
| ( | 2018 | PTB and AF-Challenge, lead I | CNN-LSTM stacking decoding classifier | 10-fold CV | Sen = 92.4%, Spec = 97.7% | NR | |
| ( | 2019 | PTB, lead I | 16-layer CNN-LSTM | 10-fold CV | Acc = 95.4%, Sen = 98.2% | NR | |
| ( | 2019 | PTB, Lead II | 16-layer CNN-LSTM | 10-fold CV | Acc = 98.51%, Sen = 99.30% | NR | |
| ( | 2019 | PTB, 12 leads | CNN combined with Bidirectional LSTM | 5-fold CV | Intra- and inter- patient analysis | ||
| ( | 2019 | PTB, 12 leads | Multiple 1-D convolution layers and LSTM layers | Acc = 83% | NR | ||
| ( | 2020 | PTB, 12 leads | CNN features and LSTM-based network | 5-fold CV | AUROC = 94% | NR | |
| ( | 2020 | PTB | Enhanced Deep Neural Network (EDN) | CNN:84.95% | NR | ||
| ( | 2020 | PTB | 2-D CNN and bidirectional gated recurrent unit (BiGRU) framework (MLA-CNN-BiGRU) | 5-fold CV | Intra- and inter-patient analysis | ||
| ( | 2021 | PTB 12 leads | Combination of only a shallow 1D CNN layer and 1 bi-LSTM layer | 5-fold CV | Acc = 99.246% | Intra-patient | |
| ( | 2021 | PTB and MIT | 23 layers hybrid model | NR | Acc = 99.89% | NR | |
Properties of some notable autoencoder (AE)-based ECG MI detection and localization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| ( | 2019 | PTB, 12 leads | CAE | 10 folds CV | 99.87 | 99.91 | 99.59 | |||||
| ( | 2019 | PTB lead II | 10 folds CV | 99.90 | 99.98 | 99.52 | 11 | 98.88 | 99.95 | 99.87 | ||
| ( | 2020 | 12 leads and 6 limb leads | CNN + AE | NA | STEMI | 89.2 | 92.0 | 0.974 | ||||
CAE, convolutional autoencoder; SAE, staked sparse autoencoder.
Properties of some notable ResNet-based ECG MI detection and localization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
| ( | 2019 | Trained: 12,952 | Deep residual skip CNN | Acc = 99.3% | NR | ||
| ( | 2019 | PTB, 12 leads | Fully connected and ResNet | 10-fold CV | Sen = 93.3% | NR | |
| ( | 2019 | PTB | Multi-lead ensemble neural network (MENN) | 5-fold CV | Inter-patient analysis | ||
| ( | 2020 | PTB, 12 leads | Feature extraction + shallow NN | 5-fold CV | Acc = 98.21%, Sen = 97.50% | Acc = 99.99%, Sen = 100% | NR |
| ( | 2020 | PTB, 12 leads | Multi-lead ResNet | 5-fold CV | Intra-: Acc = 99.92% | Intra-: Acc = 99.72% | Intra- and inter-patient analysis |
Properties of some notable GRU-based ECG MI detection and localization method.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
| ( | 2019 | PTB, 8 leads | ML-BiGRU | 90%:10% | Acc = 99.84% | NR | |
| ( | 2020 | RNN encoding block | 5-fold CV | Acc = 97.79%, Sen = 97.6% | Inter-patient analysis | ||
ML-BiGRU, Multi-lead bidirectional gated recurrent unit neural network; EMI, early MI; AMI, acute MI; CMI, chronic MI.
Advantages and disadvantages of the six different deep learning (DL) methods.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| CNN | The weight sharing strategy reduces the parameters that need to be trained | 1. Amount of valuable information will be lost in the pooling layer 2. Poor interpretability |
| LSTM | 1. Suitable for processing sequence signals 2. Overcoming the vanishing gradient problem occur on the timeline | The form of the LSTM neural network model is more complicated, and there are also problems like long training and prediction time |
| CRNN | It integrates the advantages of CNN and RNN (In MI research, recurrent layers are used to analyze the beat-to-beat variations of the ECG morphology after the convolutional layers) | High computational cost |
| ResNet | 1. Training the network deeper 2. Fixed side effects of increased depth (degradation)3. Reducing the problem of information loss compared to CNN | The training time is longer |
| GRU | Making the structure simpler compared to LSTM but maintain the effect of LSTM | The performance of GRU is inferior to that of LSTM in the case of large datasets |
| AE | Performing feature dimension reduction, and facilitate data visualization analysis | The compression ability only applies to samples that similar to training samples |
Figure 6Maximum, average, and minimum accuracies of each DL technique for MI detection (A). The reported highest accuracy for MI detection is 99.99% in the ResNet model, followed by CNN with an accuracy of 99.95%. The investigated papers with the reported highest accuracy for each model are all beyond 97%, and the average accuracy for each model is all beyond 93%. The reported minimum accuracy for MI detection appears in the CNN model with 78%. Maximum, average, and minimum accuracies of each DL technique for MI localization (B). The reported highest accuracy for MI localization is 99.87% in the CNN model. There is no research focusing on applying the LSTM model to MI localization, and only one research for AE and GRU model, respectively, applied to MI localization. Therefore, the maximum and average accuracies of autoencoder (AE) and gated recurrent unit (GRU) models are the same, but the minimum is vacant. The minimum accuracies of the remaining three models are all below 65% in MI localization. Maximum accuracies of DL techniques which were trained on investigated ECG datasets and used the different number of leads (C). Generally, the network that trained on 12 leads ECG data of PTB database has gained higher performance than that on smaller number leads of ECG data. ResNet model with 12 lead ECG data of PTB database achieved the highest accuracy 99.99% in MI localization. The usage of only lead II ECG data has also achieved good results in CNN, CRNN, and AE methods on the PTB database. The main reason is probably the three research with high performance that used only lead II ECG data are just for MI detection, and they cannot obtain matching results in MI localization.
Comparison of the methods that were reported in the articles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNN | + | *7.68% (85) | ||
| CRNN | + | *12.73% (85) | *4.68% (85) | |
| + | 34.74% (15) | 0.13% (68) | ||
| – | 4.7% (150) | 4.3% (150) | ||
| ResNet | + | 1.8% (91) | 2.23% (91) | |
| – | *4.56% (104) | |||
| GRU | + | 1.20% (73) |
The method in the corresponding row is more accurate than the method in the corresponding column when the number is positive and less accurate when the number is negative. (.
Description of newly collected datasets used in studied research.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| The ICBEB | China | ( | 825 records for ST-segment depression (STD), and 202 records for ST-segment elevated |
| A dataset built by Chapman University, Orange, CA, USA, and Shaoxing People's Hospital, China | USA and China | ( | 12-lead ECGs from 10,646 patients |
| GGH | China | ( | 12-lead ECG from 21,241 anonymized patients |
| The ECGs records which were collected in the Provincial Key Laboratory of Coronary Heart Disease, Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute (GCI) | China | ( | The 12-lead ECGs from 17,381 patients (11,853 MI and 5,528 Normal cases) |
| Hospital A was a cardiovascular teaching hospital and hospital B was a community general hospital | South Korea | ( | |
| A collection of 11,148 standard 12-lead-based ECG images were obtained from Ch. Pervaiz Elahi Institute of Cardiology Multan, Pakistan | Pakistan | ( | 2,880 images for MI |
| 114 patients enrolled in the Kerckhoff Biomarker Registry for the training and evaluation of the deep neural networks | Germany | ( | The 12-lead ECG recordings from 114 patients |