PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 21, 2004IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering1,679 citationsOpen Access

Automatic Classification of Heartbeats Using ECG Morphology and Heartbeat Interval Features

View Full Paper
PCPhilip de ChazalMOMuireann O’DwyerRRRichard B. Reilly

Structured PICO

Does an automatic processing method using ECG morphology and heartbeat interval features improve heartbeat classification performance?

P
Population
44 nonpacemaker recordings from the MIT-BIH arrhythmia database, split into two datasets of approximately 50,000 beats each
I
Intervention
Automatic processing method using a statistical classifier model with supervised learning based on ECG morphology, heartbeat intervals, and RR-intervals
C
Comparator
Previously reported automated heartbeat classification systems
O
Outcome
Classification performance (sensitivity, positive predictivity, and false positive rate) for supraventricular ectopic beat (SVEB) and ventricular ectopic beat (VEB) classessurrogate

The proposed automatic ECG processing method utilizing supervised learning improves upon previously reported automated heartbeat classification systems for detecting ectopic beats.

Abstract

A method for the automatic processing of the electrocardiogram (ECG) for the classification of heartbeats is presented. The method allocates manually detected heartbeats to one of the five beat classes recommended by ANSI/AAMI EC57:1998 standard, i.e., normal beat, ventricular ectopic beat (VEB), supraventricular ectopic beat (SVEB), fusion of a normal and a VEB, or unknown beat type. Data was obtained from the 44 nonpacemaker recordings of the MIT-BIH arrhythmia database. The data was split into two datasets with each dataset containing approximately 50,000 beats from 22 recordings. The first dataset was used to select a classifier configuration from candidate configurations. Twelve configurations processing feature sets derived from two ECG leads were compared. Feature sets were based on ECG morphology, heartbeat intervals, and RR-intervals. All configurations adopted a statistical classifier model utilizing supervised learning. The second dataset was used to provide an independent performance assessment of the selected configuration. This assessment resulted in a sensitivity of 75.9%, a positive predictivity of 38.5%, and a false positive rate of 4.7% for the SVEB class. For the VEB class, the sensitivity was 77.7%, the positive predictivity was 81.9%, and the false positive rate was 1.2%. These results are an improvement on previously reported results for automated heartbeat classification systems.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Chazal et al. (2004) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69fc326aec778e62bb78ce3dhttps://doi.org/10.1109/tbme.2004.827359
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Automatic Detection of Wave Boundaries in Multilead ECG Signals: Validation with the CSE Database1994 · 496 citations
  2. 2Comparing wavelet transforms for recognizing cardiac patterns1995 · 212 citations
  3. 3The Only EKG Book You'll Ever Need1988 · 79 citations
  4. 4The Royal London space planning: An integration of space analysis and treatment planning2000 · 229 citations
  5. 5MIT-BIH Arrhythmia Database2019 · 181 citations