| Literature DB >> 36078847 |
Yang Zhao1, Fan Xu2, Xiaomao Fan3, Hailiang Wang4, Kwok-Leung Tsui5, Yurong Guan6.
Abstract
The accelerated growth of elderly populations in many countries and regions worldwide is creating a major burden to the healthcare system. Intelligent approaches for continuous health monitoring have the potential to promote the transition to more proactive and affordable healthcare. Electrocardiograms (ECGs), collected from portable devices, with noninvasive and cost-effective merits, have been widely used to monitor various health conditions. However, the dynamic and heterogeneous pattern of ECG signals makes relevant feature construction and predictive model development a challenging task. In this study, we aim to develop an integrated approach for one-day-forward wellness prediction in the community-dwelling elderly using single-lead short ECG signal data via multiple-features construction and predictive model implementation. Vital signs data from the elderly were collected via station-based equipment on a daily basis. After data preprocessing, a set of features were constructed from ECG signals based on the integration of various models, including time and frequency domain analysis, a wavelet transform-based model, ensemble empirical mode decomposition (EEMD), and the refined composite multiscale sample entropy (RCMSE) model. Then, a machine learning based predictive model was established to map the l-day lagged features to wellness condition. The results showed that the approach developed in this study achieved the best performance for wellness prediction in the community-dwelling elderly. In practice, the proposed approach could be useful in the timely identification of elderly people who might have health risks, and could facilitating decision-making to take appropriate interventions.Entities:
Keywords: elderly care; electrocardiogram; feature construction; machine learning methods; predictive models; wellness
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36078847 PMCID: PMC9518405 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191711136
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1The flowchart of the developed approach (HI: health index).
Time domain and frequency domain statistics feature. (1) X: average value; (2) X: peak; (3) Xp-p: peak to peak; (4) Dx: skewness factor; (5) Xr: root amplitude; (6) Cf: crest factor; (7) SKf: skewness factor (8) Kf: kurtosis; (9) Sf: shape factor; (10) CLf: clearance factor; (11) If: impulse factor; (12) rms: root mean square; (13) K: variation coefficient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 2The flowchart of three layers’ wavelet decomposition.
HI and wellness condition description.
| HI | Wellness Condition Description |
|---|---|
| 1 | Poor |
| 2 | Fair |
| 3 | Good |
| 4 | Very Good |
| 5 | Excellent |
An illustration of output labels via Fisher–Yates normalization.
| HI | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fisher–Yates value | −1.332 | −0.627 | 0.449 |
| Wellness condition | Worse | Worse | Better |
| Outcome label | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Confusion matrix.
| Actual (+) | Actual (−) | |
|---|---|---|
|
| True positive (TP) | False positive (FP) |
|
| False Negative (FN) | True Negative (TN) |
Figure 3The time domain ECG signal wave of different wellness statuses.
Figure 4The extracted 184 features from ECG signals for one ‘Better’ and ‘Worse’ cases. (a) Time domain feature; (b) frequency domain feature; (c) wavelet energy feature; (d) EEMD with time domain feature; (e) RCMSE feature.
Figure 5The result of the PC1-PC3 via PCA from the original ECG signals and 184 features.
Figure 6The wellness prediction result of different models.
The performance comparison of different models.
| Model | Input Dataset |
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RF | Original ECG signal without feature construction | 0.8193 | 0.5792 | 0.6787 | 64.13 |
| PSO-SVM | 1 | 0.4997 | 0.6664 | 57.06 | |
| SAE | 0.4128 | 0.4066 | 0.4097 | 59.32 | |
| SDAE | 0.2606 | 0.3757 | 0.3077 | 60.37 | |
| DBN | 0.3642 | 0.6469 | 0.4661 | 55.18 | |
| RF | The ECG signal with the extracted 184 features | 0.8844 | 0.7294 | 0.7995 | 79.37 |
| PSO-SVM | 0.8394 | 0.7213 | 0.7759 | 76.96 | |
| SAE | 0.8147 | 0.6284 | 0.7095 | 68.80 | |
| SDAE | 0.8128 | 0.6303 | 0.7100 | 68.90 | |
| DBN | 0.8450 | 0.6440 | 0.7309 | 71.15 |
The performance results of different models through cross validation.
| Model | Input Datasets |
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RF | Original ECG signal without feature construction | 0.8670 | 0.5283 | 0.6548 | 65.97 |
| PSO-SVM | 1 | 0.4519 | 0.6255 | 56.67 | |
| SAE | 0.2110 | 0.3698 | 0.2685 | 61.03 | |
| SDAE | 0.3593 | 0.4131 | 0.3859 | 58.6 | |
| DBN | 0.4486 | 0.6257 | 0.5105 | 56.52 | |
| RF | The ECG signal with the extracted 184 features | 0.9232 | 0.6499 | 0.7636 | 80.397 |
| PSO-SVM | 0.8822 | 0.6498 | 0.7203 | 78.89 | |
| SAE | 0.8791 | 0.5491 | 0.6667 | 68.39 | |
| SDAE | 0.8412 | 0.5688 | 0.6785 | 69.22 | |
| DBN | 0.9125 | 0.6023 | 0.7255 | 70.25 |