| Literature DB >> 36268157 |
Rizwana Naz Asif1, Sagheer Abbas1, Muhammad Adnan Khan2, Kiran Sultan3, Maqsood Mahmud4, Amir Mosavi5,6,7.
Abstract
With the emergence of the Internet of Things (IoT), investigation of different diseases in healthcare improved, and cloud computing helped to centralize the data and to access patient records throughout the world. In this way, the electrocardiogram (ECG) is used to diagnose heart diseases or abnormalities. The machine learning techniques have been used previously but are feature-based and not as accurate as transfer learning; the proposed development and validation of embedded device prove ECG arrhythmia by using the transfer learning (DVEEA-TL) model. This model is the combination of hardware, software, and two datasets that are augmented and fused and further finds the accuracy results in high proportion as compared to the previous work and research. In the proposed model, a new dataset is made by the combination of the Kaggle dataset and the other, which is made by taking the real-time healthy and unhealthy datasets, and later, the AlexNet transfer learning approach is applied to get a more accurate reading in terms of ECG signals. In this proposed research, the DVEEA-TL model diagnoses the heart abnormality in respect of accuracy during the training and validation stages as 99.9% and 99.8%, respectively, which is the best and more reliable approach as compared to the previous research in this field.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36268157 PMCID: PMC9578866 DOI: 10.1155/2022/5054641
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Limitations of the related work and its outcomes.
| Studies | Dataset | Technique | Outcomes | Limits |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yeh et al. [ | Private and PTB DB | ResNet, AlexNet, and SqueezeNet | Accuracy and kappa statistics of ResNet, AlexNet, and SqueezeNet in ECG waveform classification (0.97, 0.96), (0.96, 0.95), and (0.75, 0.67). | (i) No data augmentation, |
|
| ||||
| Wasimuddin et al. [ | ECG-ID | CAD and machine learning approach | CAD and machine learning approach working on 2D image based on classification and worked on the | (i) Handcrafted features, |
|
| ||||
| Hsu et al. [ | MIT-BIH | AlexNet and ResNet 18 | ECG into the fingerprint by using the transfer learning methods and proved the predicted accuracy of 94.4%. | (i) No data augmentation and |
|
| ||||
| Elgendi and Menon [ | Private | Machine learning approach | Supervised ML algorithms confirmed that ECG is an optimal wearable biosignal for assessing driving stress, with an overall accuracy of 75.02%. | (i) Low accuracy, |
|
| ||||
| Gaddam and Sreehari [ | MIT-BIH | AlexNet | Transferred deep learning convolution neural net with 1D and 2D structure with 95.6% accuracy. | (i) Augmentation not performed and |
|
| ||||
| Simjanoska et al. [ | 4 private datasets used | Machine learning | The proposed method achieved 8.64 mmHg of the mean absolute error in the case of SBP. | (i) Handcrafted and |
|
| ||||
| Acharya et al. [ | PTB DB | CNN layers | CNN for automated detection of myocardial interaction using ECG signals, and inferred the data with noise (93.5%) and without noise (95.22%). | (i) Low accuracy and |
|
| ||||
| Tomer Golany [ | Private | GAN-based generative models such as GAN, DCNN, SIMCGAN, and SIMDCGAN. | Simulator-based network for ECG to improve deep ECG classification was used and compared all GAN-based models to find the accurate result of ECG and got SIMDCGAN as a refined and result-oriented model. | (i) Low accuracy, |
|
| ||||
| Sehirli et al. [ | PTB-XL | RNN (LSTM and GRU) | Compared the performance of the RNN with the long short-term memory (LSTM) and gated recurrent unit (GRU) and then observed that the LSTM technique is the latent method for the sequential data and time series with the accuracy of 97.7%. | (i) Less accurate, |
|
| ||||
| Strodthoff et al. [ | PTB-XL | ResNet and inception | Deep learning of ECG analysis by using datasets showed an 89.8% result. | (i) No augmentation and |
|
| ||||
| Rahman et al. [ | MIT-BIH | CAA-TL model (deep learning) | Different transfer learning approaches analyzed with data augmentation achieved 98.38% accuracy. | (i) No data fusion, |
Figure 1Hardware connectivity of the proposed DVEEA-TL model.
Figure 2The proposed DVEEA-TL architecture.
MIT-BIH Arrhythmia augmented dataset (Kaggle) [47].
| No. | Feature name | No. of samples |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | N (normal beat) | 1500 |
| 2 | S (supraventricular ectopic beat) | 3879 |
| 3 | V (ventricular ectopic beat) | 3647 |
| 4 | F (fusion beat) | 2500 |
| 5 | Q (unknown beat) | 3500 |
| Total number of images | 15026 |
RT-CarArr augmented dataset.
| No. | Feature name | No. of samples |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Healthy (normal beat) | 1500 |
| 2 | Unhealthy (fusion beat) | 1500 |
| Total number of images | 3000 |
Augmented and fused datasets BIH-RT (real-time).
| No. | Feature name | No. of samples |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | N (normal beat) | 3000 |
| 2 | S (supraventricular ectopic beat) | 3879 |
| 3 | V (ventricular ectopic beat) | 3647 |
| 4 | F (fusion beat) | 4000 |
| 5 | Q (unknown beat) | 3500 |
| Total number of images | 18026 |
Figure 3Proposed DVEEA-TL model.
Pseudocode of the proposed DVEEA-TL model.
| S no. | Step |
|---|---|
| 1 | Begin |
| 2 | Input ECG data |
| 3 | Augmentation and data fusion |
| 4 | Preprocess ECG data |
| 5 | Load data |
| 6 | Load pretrained model |
| 7 | Modified the model |
| 8 | Trained the modified model |
| 9 | Validate the modified model |
| 10 | Perform performance evaluation |
| 11 | End |
Figure 4Samples of 5 classes after preprocessing.
The proposed DVEAA-TL model used data division during training and validation.
| Classes | Total no. of instances (100%) | Training instances (70%) | Validation instances (30%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q | 3647 | 2552 | 1095 |
| N | 3879 | 2715 | 1164 |
| F | 3000 | 2100 | 900 |
| V | 3500 | 2450 | 1050 |
| S | 4000 | 2800 | 1200 |
| Total | 18026 | 12617 | 5409 |
Figure 5Transfer learning architecture of the proposed DVEEA-TL.
Figure 6Accuracy and loss rate of the proposed DVEEA-TL model.
Class-wise training and validation results of the proposed DVEEA-TL model.
| T | Evaluation matrix | F | N | V | Q | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fusion beat (%) | Normal beat (%) | Ventricular beat (%) | Unknown beat (%) | Supraventricular beat (%) | ||
| Accuracy | Training | 99.91 | 99.95 | 99.88 | 100 | 100 |
| Validation | 99.81 | 99.78 | 99.82 | 100 | 100 | |
|
| ||||||
| Classification miss rate | Training | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.12 | 0 | 0 |
| Validation | 0.19 | 0.22 | 0.18 | 0 | 0 | |
|
| ||||||
| Sensitivity | Training | 99.56 | 99.74 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Validation | 98.90 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
|
| ||||||
| Specificity | Training | 19.74 | 27.13 | 25.07 | 25.07 | 28.19 |
| Validation | 20.03 | 34.93 | 23.69 | 25.37 | 28.55 | |
|
| ||||||
| Precision | Training | 99.89 | 100 | 54.70 | 100 | 100 |
| Validation | 100 | 100 | 99.04 | 100 | 100 | |
|
| ||||||
| FPR | Training | 0.80 | 0.73 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.72 |
| Validation | 0.80 | 0.65 | 0.76 | 0.75 | 0.71 | |
|
| ||||||
| FNR | Training | 0.004 | 0.002 | 0 | 0 | 0.004 |
| Validation | 0.01 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Proposed DVEEA-TL model' overall results.
| Performance matrices | Training (%) | Validation (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | 99.9 | 99.8 |
| Classification miss rate | 0.05 | 0.07 |
| Sensitivity | 99.8 | 99.7 |
| Specificity | 21.09 | 26.5 |
| Precision | 90.9 | 99.80 |
| F1 score | 0.98 | 0.97 |
| FPR | 0.75 | 0.73 |
| FNR | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| MCC | 99.2 | 98.5 |
| Kappa score | 0.98 | 0.97 |
Figure 7Confusion matrix (training of ECG dataset).
Figure 8Confusion matrix (validation of ECG dataset).
Proposed DVEEA-TL model compared with the state-of-the-art literature.
| Studies | Hardware implementation | Data augmentation | Data fusion | Datasets | Method | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yeh et al. [ | Yes | No | No | PTB DB | ResNet, AlexNet, and SqueezeNet | Predicted accuracies: 97%, 95%, and 75% |
| Wasimuddin et al. [ | No | No | No | ECG-ID | CAD and machine learning | Predicted accuracy: 98.5% |
| Vijayakumar et al. [ | No | No | No | No | Feature extraction to remove noise | Predicted accuracy: 96.5% |
| Hsu et al. [ | No | No | No | MIT-DB | AlexNet and ResNet | Predicted accuracy: 94.4% |
| Gaddam and Sreehari [ | No | No | No | MIT-DB | AlexNet | Predicted accuracy: 95.6% |
| Simjanoska et al. [ | No | No | No | PTB DB | ML-train-validation-test evaluation | Predicted accuracy: 98% |
| Acharya et al. [ | No | No | No | PTB DB | CNN layers | Predicted accuracy: 93.5% (for noise data) |
| Hammad et al. [ | No | No | No | PTB | ResNet model | Predicted accuracy: 98.85% |
| Golany et al. [ | No | No | No | MIT-DB | GAN-based model | Predicted accuracy: 97.5% |
| Sehirli et al. [ | No | No | No | PTB-XL | RNN (LSTM and GRU) | Predicted accuracy: 97.7% |
| Strodthoff et al. [ | No | No | No | PTB-XL | ResNet and inception | Predicted accuracy: 89.8% |
| Rahman et al. [ | No | Yes | No | MIT-BIH | CAA-TL model (deep learning) | Predicted accuracy: 98.38% |
| Proposed DVEEA-TL model | Yes | Yes | Yes | BIH-RT (real-time dataset) | Transfer learning (AlexNet) | Training (99.9%) |
| Validation (99.8%) |