| Literature DB >> 35449862 |
Hadaate Ullah1, Md Belal Bin Heyat2,3,4, Hussain AlSalman5, Haider Mohammed Khan6, Faijan Akhtar7, Abdu Gumaei8, Aaman Mehdi9, Abdullah Y Muaad10,11, Md Sajjatul Islam12, Arif Ali13, Yuxiang Bu14, Dilpazir Khan13, Taisong Pan1, Min Gao1, Yuan Lin1, Dakun Lai14.
Abstract
Recently, cardiac arrhythmia recognition from electrocardiography (ECG) with deep learning approaches is becoming popular in clinical diagnosis systems due to its good prognosis findings, where expert data preprocessing and feature engineering are not usually required. But a lightweight and effective deep model is highly demanded to face the challenges of deploying the model in real-life applications and diagnosis accurately. In this work, two effective and lightweight deep learning models named Deep-SR and Deep-NSR are proposed to recognize ECG beats, which are based on two-dimensional convolution neural networks (2D CNNs) while using different structural regularizations. First, 97720 ECG beats extracted from all records of a benchmark MIT-BIH arrhythmia dataset have been transformed into 2D RGB (red, green, and blue) images that act as the inputs to the proposed 2D CNN models. Then, the optimization of the proposed models is performed through the proper initialization of model layers, on-the-fly augmentation, regularization techniques, Adam optimizer, and weighted random sampler. Finally, the performance of the proposed models is evaluated by a stratified 5-fold cross-validation strategy along with callback features. The obtained overall accuracy of recognizing normal beat and three arrhythmias (V-ventricular ectopic, S-supraventricular ectopic, and F-fusion) based on the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) is 99.93%, and 99.96% for the proposed Deep-SR model and Deep-NSR model, which demonstrate that the effectiveness of the proposed models has surpassed the state-of-the-art models and also expresses the higher model generalization. The received results with model size suggest that the proposed CNN models especially Deep-NSR could be more useful in wearable devices such as medical vests, bracelets for long-term monitoring of cardiac conditions, and in telemedicine to accurate diagnose the arrhythmia from ECG automatically. As a result, medical costs of patients and work pressure on physicians in medicals and clinics would be reduced effectively.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35449862 PMCID: PMC9018174 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3408501
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 3.822
Figure 1Workflow diagram of our proposed method for ECG arrhythmia classification.
Figure 2An end-to-end internal layer architecture of the proposed Deep-SR model.
Figure 3The layered end-to-end internal architecture of the proposed Deep-NSR model.
The internal architecture of the proposed Deep-SR model with its relevant hyperparameters. Here, ReLU is used after each convolution layer and BN is used after each ReLU and dropout; fully connected and softmax layers are not shown.
| Layer name | Output size | Kernel size | # Filters | Stride |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conv2d-1 | 62 × 62 | 5 × 5 | 32 | 2 |
| MaxPool2d-4 | 30 × 30 | 3 × 3 | 1 | 2 |
| Conv2d-5 | 28 × 28 | 3 × 3 | 64 | 1 |
| Conv2d-8 | 26 × 26 | 3 × 3 | 128 | 1 |
| Conv2d-11 | 24 × 24 | 3 × 3 | 256 | 1 |
| AvgPool2d-14 | 11 × 11 | 3 × 3 | 1 | 2 |
| Conv2d-15 | 9 × 9 | 3 × 3 | 512 | 1 |
| AdaptiveAvgPool2d-18 | 1 × 1 | 9 × 9 | 1 | — |
The internal architecture of the proposed Deep-NSR model with its relevant hyperparameters. Here, ReLU is used after each convolution layer and BN is used after each ReLU and dropout; fully connected and softmax layers are not shown.
| Layer name | Output size | Kernel size | # Filters | Stride |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conv2d-1 | 62 × 62 | 5 × 5 | 32 | 2 |
| MaxPool2d-4 | 30 × 30 | 3 × 3 | 1 | 2 |
| Conv2d-5 | 28 × 28 | 3 × 3 | 64 | 1 |
| Conv2d-8 | 26 × 26 | 3 × 3 | 128 | 1 |
| Conv2d-11 | 24 × 24 | 3 × 3 | 256 | 1 |
| AvgPool2d-14 | 11 × 11 | 3 × 3 | 1 | 2 |
| Conv2d-15 | 9 × 9 | 3 × 3 | 8 | 1 |
| AdaptiveAvgPool2d-18 | 1 × 1 | 9 × 9 | 1 | — |
Figure 4Normal and seven ECG arrhythmia beats. N, normal beat; V, premature ventricular contraction (PVC) beat; A, atrial premature contraction (APC) beat; R, right bundle branch block (RBB) beat; L, left bundle branch block (LBB) beat; P, paced beat; E, ventricular escape beat (VEB); and !-ventricular flutter wave (VFW) beat.
Figure 5Confusion matrix for the proposed Deep-SR model.
Figure 6Stratified five-fold cross-validation results for arrhythmia recognition for the proposed Deep-SR model: (a) Average accuracy, UAR, and UAF1; (b) Training and testing loss curve.
A summary of all metrics from the confusion matrix of Deep-SR model.
| Accuracy (%) | Precision (%) | Recall (%) | F1score (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | 99.94 | N | 99.99 | N | 99.94 | N | 99.97 |
| S | 99.98 | S | 99.78 | S | 99.67 | S | 99.63 |
| V | 99.94 | V | 99.27 | V | 99.94 | V | 99.62 |
| F | 99.99 | F | 99.20 | F | 99.84 | F | 99.52 |
| Average | 99.96 | Average | 99.56 | Average | 99.85 | Average | 99.67 |
The comparison of evaluation matrices, validation loss, and size of both models.
| Evaluation matrices/validation loss/learnable parameters/model size | Proposed Deep-SR model | Proposed Deep-NSR model |
|---|---|---|
| Overall testing accuracy | 0.9993 | 0.9996 |
| Unweighted overall recall | 0.9985 | 0.9998 |
| Unweighted overall F1_score | 0.9971 | 0.9987 |
| Minimum validation loss | 0.0117 | 0.0200 |
| Learnable parameters | 1573156 |
|
| Model size | 16.92 MB |
|
Figure 7Confusion matrix for the proposed Deep-NSR model.
Figure 8Stratified five-fold cross-validation results for arrhythmia recognition for the proposed Deep-NSR model: (a) average accuracy, UAR, and UAF1; (b) training and testing loss curve.
A summary of all metrics from the confusion matrix of Deep-NSR model.
| Accuracy (%) | Precision (%) | Recall (%) | F1score (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | 99.96 | N | 100 | N | 99.95 | N | 99.98 |
| S | 99.99 | S | 99.89 | S | 100 | S | 99.94 |
| V | 99.96 | V | 99.47 | V | 99.94 | V | 99.72 |
| F | 99.99 | F | 99.68 | F | 100 | F | 99.84 |
| Average | 99.98 | Average | 99.76 | Average | 99.97 | Average | 99.87 |
Comparison with the state-of-the-art models.
| Classifier type | Works | #Class category | Accuracy (%) | Recall (%) | F1score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2D CNN (Prop.) | Deep-SR | 4 |
|
|
|
| 2D CNN (Prop.) | Deep-NSR | 4 | |||
| 2D CNN | Ullah et al. [ | 8 | |||
| 2D CNN | Jun et al. [ | 8 | 99.05 | 97.85 | — |
| 2D CNN | Alex Net [ | 8 | 98.85 | 97.08 | — |
| 2D CNN | VGG Net [ | 8 | 98.63 | 96.93 | — |
| 2D CNN | Izci et al. [ | 5 | 99.05 | — | — |
| 2D CNN | Huang et al. [ | 5 | 99.00 | — | — |
| 2D CNN | Lu et al. [ | 5 | 96.00 | 96.80 | 96.40 |
| 1D CNN | Zubai et al. [ | 5 | 92.70 | — | — |
| 1D CNN | Ullah et al. [ | 8 | 97.80 | — | — |
| 1D CNN | Huang et al. [ | 5 | 90.93 | — | — |
| 1D CNN | Li et al. [ | 5 | 97.50 | — | — |
| 1D CNN | Lu et al. [ | 5 | 94.00 | 96.00 | 95.19 |
| TQWT + SVM | Jha et al. [ | 8 | 99.27 | — | — |
| CEEMDAN + PCA + ANN | Abdalla et al. [ | 5 | 99.90 | — | — |
| LBP, HOS + Ensemble SVM | Mondéjar-Guerra et al. [ | 4 | 94.50 | — | — |
With augmentation on-the-fly or manual, without augmentation, TQWT-tunable Q-wavelet transform, and CEEMDAN-complete ensemble empirical mode decomposition with adaptive noise.
Comparison with the existing models.
| Classifier type | Works | #Class category | Model Size(MB) | #Learnable Parameters |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2D CNN (Proposed) | Deep-SR Model | 4 |
| 1573156 |
| 2D CNN (Proposed) | Deep-NSR Model | 4 |
| 399656 |
| 2D CNN | Ullah et al. [ | 8 | 49.91 | 1557016 |
| 2D CNN | Jun et al. [ | 8 | 81.67 | 1149272 |
| 2D CNN | Alex Net [ | 8 | 34.05 | 947092 |
| 2D CNN | VGG Net [ | 8 | 84.66 | 7639440 |