| Literature DB >> 35978639 |
Abstract
The blockage of blood in the vessels results in heart attacks and cardiac arrests which are referred to as myocardial infarction. Early detection of such infarction is feasible through percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) based on electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring. The variations in blood flow and clot are precisely observed through periodic ECG monitoring and previous correlations. This article introduces a concentrated value assessment model (CVAM) for determining PCI levels in treating myocardial infarction. The ECG observations from the previous observation sessions are accumulated and organized for validating the infarction rate. This requires the accompanying concentrated data like a heartbeat, blood pressure, and flow rate observed in different sessions. Based on the session observation and normal data correlation, the PCI level is recommended for the patient. In this analysis process, the value shift due to blocks and high and low blood pressure is accounted for through the deep learning paradigm. This paradigm correlates the above factors with the ECG values for precisely determining PCI from the last known concentration. The learning paradigm is trained based on session and normal observation data through different intervals. This model is validated using the metrics precision, analysis rate, diagnosis recommendation, and complexity.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35978639 PMCID: PMC9377919 DOI: 10.1155/2022/8552358
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.246
Figure 1Proposed model.
Figure 2P and Sop-based observation.
Figure 3Learning—normal data correlation.
Observed data for normal and varying sessions.
| Time (min) | 1-2 | 2-3 | 3-4 | 4-5 | 5-6 | 6-7 | 7-8 | 8-9 | 9-10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation 1 | 1.00 | 7.58 | 1.12 | 0.00 | 8.06 | 7.85 | 6.61 | 4.96 | 4.75 |
| Observation 2 | 9.08 | 7.84 | 5.31 | 3.63 | 3.66 | 3.44 | 3.33 | 3.08 | 2.97 |
| Observation 3 | 7.30 | 2.12 | 0.00 | 1.19 | 1.02 | 1.02 | 1.11 | 1.24 | 1.15 |
| Observation 4 | 1.00 | 9.10 | 6.81 | 4.73 | 2.29 | 6.88 | 0.00 | 4.17 | 1.46 |
| ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ |
| Observation 10 | 1.00 | 9.14 | 4.74 | 0.00 | 6.43 | 3.18 | 4.05 | 3.92 | 3.82 |
ECG observed.
| Time (min) | 1-4 | 4-7 | 7-10 | ||||||
| Observation 1 |
|
|
| ||||||
| Observation 2 |
|
|
| ||||||
| Observation 3 |
|
|
| ||||||
| Observation 4 |
|
|
| ||||||
| ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ |
| Observation 10 |
|
|
| ||||||
S and S + 1 for the above representation.
| Time (min) | 1-4 | 4-7 | 7-10 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Observation 1 | 1.00 | — | 8.68 | — | 6.23 | ||||
| Observation 2 | 9.54 | — | 8.87 | — | 6.82 | 6.65 | |||
| Observation 3 | 8.80 | — | 8.90 | — | 5.60 | ||||
| Observation 4 | 9.10 |
| 8.94 | — | 6.44 | 6.81 | |||
| ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ |
| Observation 10 | 8.42 | — | 9.05 | — | 6.68 | ||||
Figure 4Learning—(S + 1) and (D + 1).
Shift detection in different intervals.
| Time (min) | 1-4 | 4-7 | 7-10 | 1-4 | 4-7 | 7-10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | |||||
| Observation 1 |
| 0.032377 | 0.064753 |
| 0.045788 | 0.036098 |
| Observation 2 | 0.064058 | 0.052827 | 0.126103 | 0.013317 | 0.079809 | 0.0269 |
| Observation 3 | 0.013008 | 0.021301 | 0.190856 | 0.001981 |
|
|
| Observation 4 | 0.051051 | 0.047964 | 0.303724 | 0.002986 | 0.214765 |
|
| ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ |
| Observation 10 |
| 0.018644 | 0.303724 | 0.007494 | 0.045296 |
|
ECG shift observation.
| Time (min) | 1-4 | 4-7 | 7-10 | 1-4 | 4-7 | 7-10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | |||||
| Observation 1 | 0 |
| 0 |
| ||
| Observation 2 |
|
| ||||
| Observation 3 |
|
| 0 | 0 | ||
| Observation 4 |
|
| 0 | |||
| ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ | ⋮ |
| Observation 10 | 0 |
|
| 0 | ||
Figure 5Sensitivity.
Figure 6Specificity.
Figure 7Precision.
Figure 8Negative prediction.
Comparative analysis summary for observed sessions.
| Metrics | ML-ResNet | TSCNN | Big-ECG | CVAM | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 0.897 | 0.953 | 0.928 | 1 | 7.4% high |
| Specificity | 0.794 | 0.826 | 0.904 | 1 | 7.93% high |
| Precision | 0.582 | 0.692 | 0.815 | 0.973 | 13.83% high |
| Negative prediction | 0.133 | 0.121 | 0.095 | 0.0673 | 9.81% less |
Comparative analysis summary for shift factor.
| Metrics | ML-ResNet | TSCNN | Big-ECG | CVAM | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 0.526 | 0.708 | 0.862 | 1 | 7.5% high |
| Specificity | 0.383 | 0.615 | 0.768 | 1 | 8.23% high |
| Precision | 0.57 | 0.696 | 0.816 | 0.951 | 12.85%high |
| Negative prediction | 0.138 | 0.118 | 0.093 | 0.0631 | 10.65% less |