| Literature DB >> 35846006 |
Shuang Wu1, Qing Cao1, Qiaoran Chen2, Qi Jin1, Zizhu Liu1, Lingfang Zhuang1, Jingsheng Lin3, Gang Lv3, Ruiyan Zhang1, Kang Chen1.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence is increasingly being used on the clinical electrocardiogram workflows. Few electrocardiograms based on artificial intelligence algorithms have focused on detecting myocardial ischemia using long-term electrocardiogram data. A main reason for this is that interference signals generated from daily activities while wearing the Holter monitor lowered the ability of artificial intelligence to detect myocardial ischemia. In this study, an automatic system combining denoising and segmentation modules was developed to detect the deviation of the ST-segment and J point. We proposed a ECG Bidirectional Transformer network that applied in both denoising and segmentation tasks. The denoising model achieved RMSEde, SNRimp, and PRD values of 0.074, 10.006, and 16.327, respectively. The segmentation model achieved precision, sensitivity (recall), and F1-score of 96.00, 93.06, and 94.51%, respectively. The system's ability to distinguish the depression and elevation of the ST-segment and J point was also verified by cardiologists as well. From our ECG dataset, 103 patients with ST-segment depression and 10 patients with ST-segment elevation were detected with positive predictive values of 80.6 and 60% respectively. Using Holter ECG and transformer-based deep neural networks, we can detect subtle ST-segment changes in noisy ECG signals. This system has the potential to improve the efficacy of daily medicine and to provide a broader population-level screening for asymptomatic myocardial ischemia.Entities:
Keywords: ST-Segment; deep learning; electrocardiogram; holter; multi-task learning
Year: 2022 PMID: 35846006 PMCID: PMC9277481 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2022.912739
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.755
FIGURE 1Schematic workflow of diagnosing ST-segment depression and elevation, and J point elevation from Holter electrocardiogram signal.
FIGURE 2The architecture of the EBTnet.
FIGURE 3Three successive 1D bidirectional SWT blocks. Each SW-MSA is configured with unshifted, forward-shifted, backward-shifted, respectively.
FIGURE 4The illustration of SW-MSA module with (A) unshifted (B) forward-shifted, and (C) backward-shifted.
Characteristics of R-ECG and E-ECG
| Characteristics | R-ECG | E-ECG |
|---|---|---|
| Number of subjects | 276 | 155 |
| Age, mean ± SD | 62.79 ± 14.78 | 63.43 ± 14.06 |
| Male (%) | 50.86% | 43.87% |
| Female (%) | 49.14% | 56.13% |
| Heart rate, mean ± SD | 73.54 ± 11.74 | 74.13 ± 11.55 |
FIGURE 5The structure of our datasets.
The comparison results of denoising models.
| Model | Training from scratch | Multitask inheritance training | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RMSEde | SNRimp | PRD | RMSEde | SNRimp | PRD | ||
| Inter-analysis | DENS_ECG | 0.028 | 2.546 | 38.541 | - | - | - |
| FCN | 0.045 | 4.689 | 30.117 | 0.068 | 5.079 | 28.791 | |
| Unet_LUDB | 0.058 | 6.625 | 24.099 | 0.062 | 7.323 | 22.236 | |
| 1D CNN Unet | 0.065 | 7.959 | 20.668 | 0.069 | 8.775 | 18.814 | |
| 1D CNN Unet + DRnet | 0.067 | 0.353 | 19.844 | - | - | - | |
| EBTnet |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Intra-analysis | DENS_ECG | 0.058 | 6.541 | 35.842 | - | - | - |
| FCN | 0.068 | 8.409 | 28.908 | 0.070 | 9.049 | 26.852 | |
| Unet_LUDB | 0.062 | 7.255 | 22.322 | 0.066 | 8.072 | 20.400 | |
| 1D CNN Unet | 0.068 | 8.790 | 18.363 | 0.073 | 9.672 | 16.967 | |
| 1D CNN Unet + DRnet | 0.072 | 0.369 | 17.599 | - | - | - | |
| EBTnet |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Inter-analysis: The training, validation, and testing set were divided based on subjects.
Intra-analysis: The training, validation, and testing set were divided based on samples.
The bold values not in parentheses are the results of our model (EBTnet). And the bold values in parentheses indicate that the results of multi-task inheritance training are better than the results of training from scratch.
FIGURE 6The inter-analysis denoising results of different methods on multitask inheritance training scheme. (A) Ground-truth ECG. (B) Noise-convolved ECG. (C) Denoised ECG by 1D CNN Unet. (D) Denoised ECG by FCN. (E) Denoised ECG by Unet_LUDB. (F) Denoised ECG by EBTnet.
FIGURE 7The distribution of NQRS and CQRS before and after denoising in R-ECG and E-ECG datasets. Data are expressed as mean ± SD. The difference between un-denoise and denoise groups was analyzed by paired t-test, and the difference between R-ECG and E-ECG was analyzed by independent-samples t-test. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, and ns denoted no significance difference.
The comparison results of segmentation models in the inter-analysis.
| Model | Label | Training from scratch | Multitask inheritance training | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 (%) | Precision (%) | Recall (%) | F1 (%) | Precision (%) | Recall (%) | ||
| DENS_ECG | NOQRS | 95.41 | 96.46 | 94.37 | - | - | - |
| CQRS | 60.99 | 53.23 | 71.40 | - | - | - | |
| NQRS | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | - | - | - | |
| DRNET | NOQRS | 99.21 | 99.44 | 98.97 | - | - | - |
| CQRS | 89.64 | 87.00 | 92.44 | - | - | - | |
| NQRS | 42.35 | 45.61 | 39.53 | - | - | - | |
| FCN | NOQRS | 99.33 | 99.29 | 99.38 | 99.30 | 98.96 | 99.65 |
| CQRS | 90.04 | 88.53 | 91.61 | 91.55 | 94.76 | 88.55 | |
| NQRS | 42.08 | 51.68 | 35.49 | 45.38 | 43.95 | 46.91 | |
| Unet_LUDB | NOQRS | 99.41 | 99.33 | 99.49 | 99.36 | 99.13 | 99.58 |
| CQRS | 93.79 | 91.74 | 95.93 | 94.06 | 92.96 | 95.19 | |
| NQRS | 22.24 | 70.33 | 13.21 | 24.59 | 77.56 | 14.61 | |
| 1D CNN Unet | NOQRS | 99.50 | 99.56 | 99.44 | 99.51 | 99.45 | 99.56 |
| CQRS | 93.22 | 93.13 | 93.31 | 94.48 | 95.17 | 93.80 | |
| NQRS | 62.45 | 60.36 | 64.70 | 64.16 | 62.33 | 66.11 | |
|
| NOQRS | 99.47 | 99.53 | 99.40 | 99.52 | 99.44 | 99.61 |
| CQRS | 93.83 | 94.50 | 93.17 |
|
|
| |
| NQRS | 69.62 | 64.07 | 76.24 | 71.85 | 68.50 | 75.54 | |
The bold values not in parentheses are the results of our model (EBTnet). And the bold values in parentheses indicate that the results of multi-task inheritance training are better than the results of training from scratch.
The comparison results of segmentation models in the intra-analysis.
| Model | Label | Training from scratch | Multitask inheritance training | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 (%) | Precision (%) | Recall (%) | F1 (%) | Precision (%) | Recall (%) | ||
| DENS_ECG | NOQRS | 90.87 | 97.39 | 85.18 | - | - | - |
| CQRS | 48.57 | 34.78 | 80.45 | - | - | - | |
| NQRS | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | - | - | - | |
| DRNET | NOQRS | 99.21 | 98.93 | 99.48 | - | - | - |
| CQRS | 89.59 | 91.58 | 87.69 | - | - | - | |
| NQRS | 45.99 | 47.65 | 44.45 | - | - | - | |
| FCN | NOQRS | 99.34 | 99.18 | 99.50 | 99.29 | 99.30 | 99.29 |
| CQRS | 91.52 | 89.83 | 93.29 | 93.56 | 92.07 | 95.11 | |
| NQRS | 45.90 | 68.50 | 34.52 | 49.98 | 69.41 | 39.05 | |
| Unet_LUDB | NOQRS | 99.35 | 99.47 | 99.23 | 99.25 | 99.14 | 99.35 |
| CQRS | 91.36 | 86.93 | 96.27 | 93.23 | 91.52 | 95.00 | |
| NQRS | 27.81 | 49.94 | 19.27 | 30.07 | 72.04 | 19.00 | |
| 1D CNN Unet | NOQRS | 99.50 | 99.54 | 94.63 | 99.54 | 99.58 | 99.51 |
| CQRS | 94.63 | 94.31 | 94.96 | 95.21 | 94.15 | 96.29 | |
| NQRS | 71.23 | 74.43 | 68.31 | 73.59 | 80.37 | 67.87 | |
|
| NOQRS | 99.57 | 99.52 | 99.63 | 99.61 | 99.53 | 99.70 |
| CQRS | 95.38 | 95.43 | 95.34 |
|
|
| |
| NQRS | 76.76 | 79.75 | 73.99 | 78.75 | 85.70 | 72.84 | |
The bold values not in parentheses are the results of our model (EBTnet). And the bold values in parentheses indicate that the results of multi-task inheritance training are better than the results of training from scratch.
FIGURE 8The inter-analysis segmentation results of different methods on multitask inheritance training scheme. (A) Ground-truth ECG. (B) 1D CNN Unet. (C) FCN. (D) Unet_LUDB. (E) EBTnet.
The distribution of the ST-segment depression and elevation in every lead group.
| Datasets | Type | I, aVL | II, III, aVF | aVR | V1, V2 | V3, V4 | V5, V6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R-ECG | STD | 2 | 100 | 11 | 6 | 19 | 97 |
| STE | 0 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 1 | |
| E-ECG | STD | 1 | 23 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 20 |
| STE | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
The result of cardiologist’s manual verification to validate the result of our model.
| STD | STE | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Our system | Cardiologist | Our system | Cardiologist | |
| R-ECG | 103 | 83 | 10 | 6 |
| E-ECG | 68 | 52 | 4 | 2 |