The Vision Transformer (ViT) deep learning model achieved a 100% F1-score, true positive rate, and AUPR for classifying arrhythmia, myocardic, and normal patients from ECG signals.
Can deep learning models accurately classify heart diseases based on ECG signals?
Deep learning models, particularly the Vision Transformer, demonstrate exceptional accuracy in classifying ECG signals into arrhythmia, myocardic, and normal categories.
Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 0%
Recent advancements in the accuracy of deep learning (DL) hold significant promise for improving the classification of heart patients. Nevertheless, continued refinement is essential to achieve even greater levels of precision in DL techniques. This paper proposes three efficient DL models: Swin Transformer (Swin-T), Visual Geometry Group (VGG)-19, and Vision Transformer (ViT), which are implemented to classify different types of heart patients. The three DL models are learned on a balanced dataset comprising 600 electrocardiogram (ECG) samples. This dataset contains three classes: Arrhythmia Patient, Myocardic Patient, and Normal Patient. The DL models are applied using a PyTorch framework v2.10.0, with fine-tuning for the models’ hyperparameters to maximize the classification accuracy, and data augmentation techniques are implemented for the ECG samples. Additionally, a smart web application is designed for classifying heart patients into three different diagnostic categories. The performance of the three models is assessed by several metrics such as area under precision-recall (AUPR) curves and normalized confusion matrices (NCMs). The proposed three models achieve high testing accuracy for the classification of heart patients. Regarding testing loss (TL) rates for the Swin-T, VGG-19, and ViT achieve rates of 0.0707, 0.4138, and 0.0015, respectively. Also, the ViT achieves an F1-score, true positive rate (TPR), and AUPR curves of 100%.
Mohsen et al. (Mon,) reported a other. The Vision Transformer (ViT) deep learning model achieved a 100% F1-score, true positive rate, and AUPR for classifying arrhythmia, myocardic, and normal patients from ECG signals.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: