| Literature DB >> 35693881 |
Anqi Zhang1, Jiaming Wang2, Fei Qu3, Zhaoming He4.
Abstract
Purpose: Children's heart sounds were denoised to improve the performance of the intelligent diagnosis.Entities:
Keywords: congenital heart disease; heart sound denoising; intelligent classification; variational mode decomposition; wavelet soft threshold
Year: 2022 PMID: 35693881 PMCID: PMC9178247 DOI: 10.3389/fmedt.2022.854382
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Med Technol ISSN: 2673-3129
Figure 1Distribution of heart sound types. Normal heart sound (normal), ventricular septal defect (VSD), atrial septal defect (ASD), atrial septal defect + ventricular septal defect (ASD + VSD), patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), right ventricular double outlet (DORV), other pathological murmurs (others).
Figure 2Analysis of the value of K: the frequency-amplitude in double logarithmic coordinates of heart sound of a 1-year-old healthy boy collected in a quiet environment.
The time and frequency features in closed atrioventricular valve (CAV) and closed semilunar valve (CSV) periods.
|
|
|
|---|---|
| 1–3 | Max, Min, and Mean absolute in CAV |
| 4–6 | Max, Min, and Mean absolute in CSV |
| 7–8 | Max and Mean: power spectral density of CAV |
| 9–10 | Max and Mean: power spectral density of CSV |
Figure 3The PCG of a healthy child collected professionally in a quiet environment and the denoising results for the PCG with 5 dB and 10 dB Gaussian noise added, respectively. The comparison of details is shown at the bottom: clean PCG and denoised PCG using the WST, VGW (red line), VMD-based method (blue line).
Comparison of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of PCG signals with Gaussian noise after noise reduction.
|
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Normal (13Y) | 15.61 | 15.85 | 9.38 | 13.06 | 19.32 | 19.42 | 12.61 | 3.13 |
| Normal (4Y) | 13.92 | 13.88 | 8.55 | 4.63 | 16.43 | 16.74 | 11.68 | 3.82 |
| Normal (1Y) | 13.30 | 13.55 | 9.88 | 11.65 | 17.28 | 17.43 | 13.34 | 7.68 |
| Normal (7Y) | 14.76 | 15.46 | 10.20 | 14.38 | 19.69 | 19.86 | 13.67 | 4.94 |
| VSD (2Y) | 8.81 | 8.22 | 4.13 | 7.25 | 9.19 | 9.49 | 6.27 | 2.17 |
| ASD (4Y) | 11.49 | 11.27 | 6.45 | 4.08 | 13.71 | 13.68 | 9.53 | 3.60 |
| ECD (4Y) | 12.86 | 12.83 | 6.59 | 4.69 | 13.92 | 13.77 | 9.58 | 4.67 |
| PDA (6Y) | 6.75 | 8.02 | 5.30 | 4.09 | 7.37 | 8.89 | 8.40 | 2.52 |
Comparison of root mean square error (RMSE) of PCG signals with Gaussian noise after noise reduction.
|
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Normal (13Y) | 0.0266 | 0.0269 | 0.0531 | 0.0317 | 0.0145 | 0.0146 | 0.0318 | 0.0996 |
| Normal (4Y) | 0.0277 | 0.0286 | 0.0486 | 0.0735 | 0.0157 | 0.0156 | 0.0315 | 0.0807 |
| Normal (1Y) | 0.0314 | 0.0315 | 0.0475 | 0.0380 | 0.0187 | 0.0183 | 0.0311 | 0.0599 |
| Normal (7Y) | 0.0274 | 0.0275 | 0.0483 | 0.0287 | 0.0152 | 0.0151 | 0.0307 | 0.0849 |
| VSD (2Y) | 0.0467 | 0.0465 | 0.0769 | 0.0518 | 0.0377 | 0.0364 | 0.0550 | 0.0931 |
| ASD (4Y) | 0.0454 | 0.0509 | 0.0823 | 0.1049 | 0.0377 | 0.0383 | 0.0573 | 0.1109 |
| ECD (4Y) | 0.0387 | 0.0379 | 0.0756 | 0.0950 | 0.0373 | 0.0359 | 0.0547 | 0.0953 |
| PDA (6Y) | 0.0431 | 0.0350 | 0.0512 | 0.0581 | 0.0403 | 0.0353 | 0.0359 | 0.0697 |
Figure 4Noise reduction for a collected PCG with ambient noise that exhibits impulsive interference.
Figure 5PCG without crying noise (top), PCG with severe crying noise and noise reductions for the PCG with severe crying noise.
Figure 6Comparison of Mel filter energies after noise reductions for PCG with severe crying noise.
Figure 7PCG segmentation after noise reduction.
Figure 8The results of PCG classification with the WST only, VWG and VGW, respectively.
Classification performance based on different noise reduction methods:accuracy (Acc), sensitivity (Se), and specificity (Sp).
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
| WST only ( | 87.38% | 93.94% | 75.68% |
| VWG | 92.23% | 92.42% | 91.89% |
| VGW | 92.23% | 93.94% | 89.19% |
Comparison of performance with other methods.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| WPT and SVD ( | / | SNR:22.21 dB (10 dB), 18.37 dB (5 dB) |
| VMD denoising ( | PCGs collected clinically | SNR:24.1 dB (10 dB), 19.1 dB (5 dB) |
| Ours | SNR:7.99 dB (5 dB) | |
| GSD ( | PCGs collected clinically | SNR:30.3 dB (10 dB), 35.26 dB (15 dB) |
| OMLSA and WT ( | PCGs collected clinically | SNR:11.76 dB (5 dB) |
| Matched Filters, Support Vector Machine, ANN ( | PCGs collected clinically | Se = 84–93%,Sp = 91–99% |
| Wavelet hard thresholding, iterative backward elimination, SVM ( | PCGs collected clinically | Acc = 92.6% |
| Butterworth band-pass filter, MFCCs, CRNN ( | The CinC challenge 2016 database | Se = 98.66%, Sp = 98.01%, |
| WST ( | Ours | SNR:10.64 dB (10 dB), 7.56 dB (5 dB) |
| Proposed, ANN | Ours | SNR:14.91 dB (10 dB), 12.39 dB (5 dB) |