| Literature DB >> 35958748 |
Atta-Ur Rahman1, Rizwana Naz Asif2, Kiran Sultan3, Suleiman Ali Alsaif4, Sagheer Abbas2, Muhammad Adnan Khan5, Amir Mosavi6,7,8.
Abstract
According to the World Health Organization (WHO) report, heart disease is spreading throughout the world very rapidly and the situation is becoming alarming in people aged 40 or above (Xu, 2020). Different methods and procedures are adopted to detect and diagnose heart abnormalities. Data scientists are working on finding the different methods with the required accuracy (Strodthoff et al., 2021). Electrocardiogram (ECG) is the procedure to find the heart condition in the waveform. For ages, the machine learning techniques, which are feature based, played a vital role in the medical sciences and centralized the data in cloud computing and having access throughout the world. Furthermore, deep learning or transfer learning widens the vision and introduces different transfer learning methods to ensure accuracy and time management to detect the ECG in a better way in comparison to the previous and machine learning methods. Hence, it is said that transfer learning has turned world research into more appropriate and innovative research. Here, the proposed comparison and accuracy analysis of different transfer learning methods by using ECG classification for detecting ECG Arrhythmia (CAA-TL). The CAA-TL model has the multiclassification of the ECG dataset, which has been taken from Kaggle. Some of the healthy and unhealthy datasets have been taken in real-time, augmented, and fused with the Kaggle dataset, i.e., Massachusetts Institute of Technology-Beth Israel Hospital (MIT-BIH dataset). The CAA-TL worked on the accuracy of heart problem detection by using different methods like ResNet50, AlexNet, and SqueezeNet. All three deep learning methods showed remarkable accuracy, which is improved from the previous research. The comparison of different deep learning approaches with respect to layers widens the research and gives the more clarity and accuracy and at the same time finds it time-consuming while working with multiclassification with massive dataset of ECG. The implementation of the proposed method showed an accuracy of 98.8%, 90.08%, and 91% for AlexNet, SqueezeNet, and ResNet50, respectively.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35958748 PMCID: PMC9357747 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6852845
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Limitations of previous work.
| Studies | Dataset | Method | Findings | Limitations |
|
| ||||
| Strodthoff et al. [ | PTB -XL | ResNet and inception | Predicted accuracy 89.8% | -No data augmentation |
| -Less accurate | ||||
|
| ||||
| Wasimuddin et al. [ | ECG-ID | CAD and machine learning | Predicted accuracy 98.5% | -Handcrafted |
| -Small dataset | ||||
|
| ||||
| Elgendi and Menon [ | SRAD | Database supervised ML algorithms | Predicted accuracy 75.02% | -No data augmentation |
| -Handcrafted | ||||
|
| ||||
| Hsu et al. [ | MIT-DB | AlexNet and ResNet | Predicted accuracy 94.4% | -No data augmentation |
|
| ||||
| Acharya et al. [ | PTB DB | CNN layers | Accuracy 93.5% with noise and 95.22% without noise | -Less accurate |
| -Less number of classes | ||||
|
| ||||
| Gaddam et al. [ | MIT-DB | Alex net | Predicted accuracy 95.6% | -Less accurate |
| -No data augmentation | ||||
|
| ||||
| Reddy and khare [ | UCI dataset | Rule-based fuzzy classifier and feature reduction | Predicted accuracy 76.51% | -Handcrafted |
| -No augmentation | ||||
| -Less accurate | ||||
|
| ||||
| Poudel et al. [ | KVASIR dataset | CAD and machine learning | F1-score of 0.88 | -Handcrafted |
| -No augmentation | ||||
| -Less number of classes | ||||
|
| ||||
| Siddique et al. [ | Private | Fuzzy inference system, deep extreme machine learning, and ANN | 87.05%, 92.45%, and 89.4% | -Handcrafted |
| -No augmentation | ||||
| -Less accurate | ||||
Pseudocode of the proposed CAA-TL model.
| 1 | Start |
| 2 | Input ECG data from kaggle |
| 3 | Augmented data |
| 4 | ECG preprocess data |
| 5 | Load data & pre-trained (transfer learning) model |
| 6 | Trained model using transfer learning (AlexNet, SqueezeNet, and ResNet50) for ECG classification |
| 7 | Validation phase for ECG classification for unknown images |
| 8 | Compute the performance and accuracy of the proposed model |
| 9 | Stop |
Figure 1Proposed architecture of CAA-TL.
Training and validation ratio of proposed CAA-TL model
| Proposed CAA-TL model training and validation (80%–20%) | |||
| AlexNet, SqueezeNet, ResNet50 | |||
| Classes | Actual number of images | Training (80%) | Validation (20%) |
|
| |||
| F | 3000 | 2400 | 600 |
| N | 3879 | 3103 | 776 |
| Q | 2500 | 2000 | 500 |
| S | 4000 | 3200 | 800 |
| V | 3500 | 2800 | 700 |
| Total | 16879 | 13503 | 3370 |
Figure 2Proposed CAA-TL (AlexNet) validation accuracy and loss graph.
Confusion matrix of CAA-TL model (training & validation).
| Images | Confusion matrix | Confusion matrix | ||||||||
| CAA-TL model (AlexNet) | CAA-TL model (AlexNet) | |||||||||
| 80% samples for training | 20% samples for validation | |||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
| F | 2277 | 4 | 15 | 87 | 111 | 547 | 3 | 7 | 28 | 7 |
| N | 6 | 3090 | 4 | 2 | 14 | 1 | 769 | 2 | 0 | 10 |
| Q | 7 | 0 | 1916 | 48 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 473 | 15 | 0 |
| S | 86 | 1 | 49 | 3036 | 40 | 20 | 1 | 13 | 748 | 0 |
| V | 124 | 8 | 16 | 27 | 2632 | 31 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 1047 |
Figure 3Validation accuracy and loss of proposed CAA-TL (SqueezeNet).
Confusion matrix of CAA-TL model (training & validation).
| Images | Confusion matrix | Confusion matrix | ||||||||
| CAA-TL model (squeezeNet) | CAA-TL model (squeezeNet) | |||||||||
| 80% samples for training | 20% samples for validation | |||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
| F | 2500 | 3103 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 599 | 776 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| N | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Q | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 499 | 0 | 0 |
| S | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3200 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 800 | 1064 |
| V | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2800 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Figure 4Validation accuracy and loss of proposed CAA-TL(ResNet50).
Accuracy and loss rate of ResNet50.
| Dataset | Confusion matrix | Confusion matrix | ||||||||
| CAA-TL model (squeezeNet) | CAA-TL model (squeezeNet) | |||||||||
| 80% samples for training | 20% samples for validation | |||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
| F | 2500 | 3103 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 600 | 776 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| N | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Q | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 500 | 0 | 0 |
| S | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3200 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 800 | 1064 |
| V | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2800 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Simulation result of proposed CAA-TL model.
| AlexNet | SqueezeNet | ResNet50 | ||||
| Image dimensions | 227 × 227 | 227 × 227 | 227 × 227 | |||
| Layers | 25 | 68 | 177 | |||
|
| ||||||
| For F | Training | Validation | Training | Validation | Training | Validation |
| Accuracy | 97.38% | 76.67% | 77.19% | 79.20% | 77.19% | 79.25% |
| Miss classification rate | 2.62% | 3.23% | 22.81% | 20.80% | 22.81% | 20.75% |
| Sensitivity | 92.40% | 91.30% | 44.62% | 43.53% | 44.62% | 43.60% |
| Specificity | 98.32% | 97.34% | 100% | 58.21% | 100% | 100% |
| Precision | 91.17% | 91.08% | 100% | 99.83% | 100% | 100% |
| FPR | 0.02% | 0.03% | 0% | 0.99% | 0% | 0% |
| FNR | 0.08% | 0.09% | 0.55% | 0.56% | 0.55% | 0% |
|
| ||||||
| For S | Training | Validation | Training | Validation | Training | Validation |
| Accuracy | 97.70% | 97.50% | 100% | 71.55% | 100% | 71.55% |
| Miss classification rate | 2.30% | 2.5% | 0% | 28.45% | 0% | 30.66% |
| Sensitivity | 95.66% | 94.52% | 100% | 42.92% | 100% | 42.92% |
| Specificity | 98.24% | 98.42% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Precision | 93.5% | 94.88% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| FPR | 0.02% | 0.02% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| FNR | 0.04% | 0.06% | 0% | 0.57% | 0% | 0% |
|
| ||||||
| For Q | Training | Validation | Training | Validation | Training | Validation |
| Accuracy | 98.85% | 98.96% | 100% | 99.97% | 100% | 100% |
| Miss classification rate | 1.15% | 1.04% | 0% | 0.027% | 0% | 0% |
| Sensitivity | 96.73% | 97.61% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Specificity | 99.17% | 99.28% | 100% | 99.97% | 100% | 100% |
| Precision | 94.6% | 95.8% | 100% | 99.8% | 100% | 100% |
| FPR | 0.008% | 0.007% | 0% | 0.0003% | 0% | 0% |
| FNR | 0.03% | 0.02% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
|
| ||||||
| For N | Training | Validation | Training | Validation | Training | Validation |
| Accuracy | 99.47% | 99.74% | 77.19% | 83.96% | 77.19% | 79.25% |
| Miss classification rate | 0.53% | 0.29% | 22.81% | 16.04% | 22.81% | 20.75% |
| Sensitivity | 98.34% | 99.17% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Specificity | 99.76% | 99.87% | 100% | 83.96% | 100% | 79.25% |
| Precision | 99.10% | 99.58% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| FPR | 0.002% | 0.001% | 0% | 0.16% | 0% | 0.21% |
| FNR | 0.017% | 0.008% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
|
| ||||||
| For V | Training | Validation | Training | Validation | Training | Validation |
| Accuracy | 99.26% | 97.48% | 100% | 71.52% | 100% | 71.55% |
| Miss classification rate | 1.74% | 2.52% | 0% | 28.48% | 0% | 28.45% |
| Sensitivity | 95.62% | 93.77% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| Specificity | 99.36% | 98.44% | 100% | 71.54% | 100% | 71.55% |
| Precision | 98.40% | 94% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| FPR | 0.006% | 0.02% | 0% | 0.28% | 0% | 0.28% |
| FNR | 0.04% | 0.06% | 0% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
Percentage accuracy of transfer learning approaches for proposed CAA-TL model.
| Percentage accuracy of different classes of CAA-TL model | ||||||
| Classes | AlexNet | SqueezeNet | ResNet50 | |||
| TR | VL | TR | VL | TR | VL | |
|
| ||||||
| V | 99.26% | 97.48% | 100% | 71.52% | 100% | 71.52% |
| S | 97.70% | 97.50% | 100% | 71.55% | 100% | 71.52% |
| Q | 98.85% | 98.96% | 100% | 99.97% | 100% | 100% |
| N | 99.47% | 99.74% | 77.19% | 83.96% | 77.19% | 79.25% |
| F | 97.38% | 76.67% | 77.19% | 79.20% | 77.19% | 79.25% |
| %Age average | 98.38% | 94.07% | 90.08% | 81.24% | 91% | 80.30% |
Comparison result of proposed CAA-TL model with literature.
| Studies | Data augmentation | Dataset used | Method | Findings | |
|
| |||||
| Strodthoff et al. [ | No | PTB -XL | ResNet and inception | -Predicted accuracy 89.8% | |
|
| |||||
| Wasimuddin et al. [ | No | ECG-ID | CAD and machine learning | -Predicted accuracy 98.5% | |
|
| |||||
| Vijayakumar et al. [ | No | No | Feature extraction to remove noise | -Predicted accuracy 94.5% | |
|
| |||||
| Hsu et al. [ | No | MIT-DB | AlexNet and ResNet | -Predicted accuracy 94.4% | |
|
| |||||
| Acharya et al. [ | No | PTB DB | CNN layers | -Accuracy 93.5% with noise and 95.22% without noise | |
|
| |||||
| Gaddam et al. [ | No | MIT-DB | AlexNet | -Predicted accuracy 95.6% | |
|
| |||||
| Reddy and khare [ | No | UCI dataset | Rule-based fuzzy classifier and feature reduction | -Predicted accuracy 76.51% | |
|
| |||||
| Poudel et al. [ | No | KVASIR dataset | CAD and machine learning | F1-score of 0.88 | |
|
| |||||
| Siddique et al. [ | No | Private | Fuzzy inference system, deep extreme machine learning, and ANN | 87.05%, 92.45%, and 89.4% | |
|
| |||||
| Proposed CAA-TL model | Yes | MIT-BIH | Transfer LearningMethods | AlexNet | Accuracy (98.38%) |
| SqueezeNet | Accuracy (90.08%) | ||||
| ResNet50 | Accuracy (91%) | ||||