| Literature DB >> 36159404 |
Abstract
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has currently caused the mortality of millions of people around the world. Aside from the direct mortality from the COVID-19, the indirect effects of the pandemic have also led to an increase in the mortality rate of other non-COVID patients. Evidence indicates that novel COVID-19 pandemic has caused an inflation in acute cardiovascular mortality, which did not relate to COVID-19 infection. It has in fact increased the risk of death in cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients. For this purpose, it is dramatically inevitable to monitor CVD patients' vital signs and to detect abnormal events before the occurrence of any critical conditions resulted in death. Internet of things (IoT) and health monitoring sensors have improved the medical care systems by enabling latency-sensitive surveillance and computing of large amounts of patients' data. The major challenge being faced currently in this problem is its limited scalability and late detection of cardiovascular events in IoT-based computing environments. To this end, this paper proposes a novel framework to early detection of cardiovascular events based on a deep learning architecture in IoT environments. Experimental results showed that the proposed method was able to detect cardiovascular events with better performance (95.30% average sensitivity and 95.94% mean prediction values). ©The Author(s) 2022. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19 Pandemic; Cardiovascular events; Early detection; Health monitoring; Internet of things
Year: 2022 PMID: 36159404 PMCID: PMC9477683 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i26.9207
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Clin Cases ISSN: 2307-8960 Impact factor: 1.534
Figure 1Architecture of the internet of things for electrocardiogram monitoring.
Figure 2Process of the proposed health monitoring system. LSTM: Long short-term memory; RST: Rough set theory.
Figure 3Structure of an long short-term memory unit[32].
The most important features of electrocardiogram signals in the UCI dataset
|
|
|
| Age | Yr |
| Sex | Male = 0, female = 1 |
| Height | cm |
| Weight | Kg |
| QRS length | Average QRS length in milliseconds |
| Distance P-R | Average time interval between the start of waves P and Q in milliseconds |
| Distance Q-T | Average time interval between start of wave Q and end of wave T in milliseconds |
| Distance T | Average time interval of wave T in milliseconds |
| Distance P | Average P wave distance in milliseconds |
| QRS | Degree vector angles on the screen |
| T | Degree vector angles on the screen |
| P | Degree vector angles on the screen |
| QRST | Degree vector angles on the screen |
| J | Degree vector angles on the screen |
| Heart rate | Heart rate per minute |
Cardiac arrhythmia classes in the UCI dataset
|
|
|
|
| C1 | Normal | 245 |
| C2 | Ischemic changes (coronary artery diseases) | 44 |
| C3 | Old anterior myocardial infarction | 15 |
| C4 | Old inferior myocardial infarction | 15 |
| C5 | Sinus tachycardy | 13 |
| C6 | Sinus bradycardy | 25 |
| C7 | Ventricular premature contraction (pvc) | 3 |
| C8 | Supraventricular premature contraction | 2 |
| C9 | Left bundle branch block | 9 |
| C10 | Right bundle branch block | 50 |
| C11 | 1 Degree antrioventricular block | 0 |
| C12 | 2 Degree AV block | 0 |
| C13 | 3 Degree AV block | 0 |
| C14 | Left ventricule hypertrophy | 4 |
| C15 | Atrial fibrillation or flutter | 5 |
| C16 | Others | 22 |
The confusion matrix
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
| Test results | Positive | TP | FP |
| Negative | FN | TN | |
TP: True positive; TN: True negative; FP: False positive; FN: False negative.
Long short-term memory model training and test times with/without rough set theory feature selection
|
|
|
|
|
| Training | 217154 ms | 69247 ms | 68.11% |
| Test | 23854 ms | 3856 ms | 83.83% |
LSTM: Long short-term memory; RST: Rough set theory.
Positive prediction value of detection of the proposed system by cardiac arrhythmia classes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| C1 | 97.65 | 98.44 | C9 | NaN | NaN |
| C2 | 89.54 | 90.23 | C10 | 98.49 | 99.83 |
| C3 | 98.76 | 99.08 | C11 | NaN | NaN |
| C4 | 99.14 | 99.12 | C12 | NaN | NaN |
| C5 | 98.26 | 98.74 | C13 | NaN | NaN |
| C6 | 94.29 | 96.63 | C14 | 98.16 | 98.94 |
| C7 | NaN | NaN | C15 | NaN | NaN |
| C8 | NaN | NaN | C16 | 87.63 | 89.90 |
| Average PPV | LSTM | 95.76 | Average PPV | RST-LSTM | 96.77 |
NaN: Not a number; LSTM: Long short-term memory; RST: Rough set theory; PPV: Positive prediction value.
Sensitivity of detection of the proposed system by cardiac arrhythmia classes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| C1 | 98.54 | 99.16 | C9 | NaN | NaN |
| C2 | 86.73 | 88.57 | C10 | 98.24 | 98.65 |
| C3 | 99.54 | 99.52 | C11 | NaN | NaN |
| C4 | 97.98 | 98.86 | C12 | NaN | NaN |
| C5 | 98.36 | 98.87 | C13 | NaN | NaN |
| C6 | 89.56 | 92.19 | C14 | 97.92 | 99.03 |
| C7 | NaN | NaN | C15 | NaN | NaN |
| C8 | NaN | NaN | C16 | 81.57 | 82.87 |
| Average sensitivity | LSTM | 94.27 | Average sensitivity | RST-LSTM | 95.30 |
NaN: Not a number; LSTM: Long short-term memory; RST: Rough set theory.
Figure 4Performance of different methods compared to the proposed method. LSTM: Long short-term memory; RST: Rough set theory; PPV: Positive prediction value; NPV: Negative prediction value.
Negative prediction value of detection of the proposed system by cardiac arrhythmia classes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| C1 | 96.74 | 98.14 | C9 | NaN | NaN |
| C2 | 84.27 | 86.45 | C10 | 97.45 | 98.32 |
| C3 | 98.79 | 99.16 | C11 | NaN | NaN |
| C4 | 97.56 | 98.87 | C12 | NaN | NaN |
| C5 | 98.23 | 98.12 | C13 | NaN | NaN |
| C6 | 90.29 | 92.64 | C14 | 98.34 | 99.05 |
| C7 | NaN | NaN | C15 | NaN | NaN |
| C8 | NaN | NaN | C16 | 83.11 | 85.36 |
| Average NPV | LSTM | 93.86 | Average NPV | RST-LSTM | 95.12 |
NaN: Not a number; LSTM: Long short-term memory; RST: Rough set theory; NPV: Negative prediction value.