Key result
Feedforward neural networks show ~0.93 correlation with standard L2 optimization for determining cardiovascular intrinsic frequencies.
Why the study?
The computational complexity of the current L2 optimization solver for intrinsic frequency calculations limits real-time practical deployment.
Does a sequentially-reduced Feedforward Neural Network model accurately determine cardiovascular intrinsic frequencies from a single carotid waveform compared to the standard L2 optimization method?
Does a sequentially-reduced Feedforward Neural Network model accurately determine cardiovascular intrinsic frequencies from a single carotid waveform compared to the standard L2 optimization method?
A machine learning-based approach using a Feedforward Neural Network can accurately and efficiently determine cardiovascular intrinsic frequencies from carotid waveforms, overcoming the computational complexity of traditional methods.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May enable efficient intrinsic frequency estimation from carotid waveforms; leaves open prospective clinical validation.
Analysis of cardiovascular waveforms provides valuable clinical information about the state of health and disease. The intrinsic frequency (IF) method is a recently introduced framework that uses a single arterial pressure waveform to extract physiologically relevant information about the cardiovascular system. The clinical usefulness and physiological accuracy of the IF method have been well-established via several preclinical and clinical studies. However, the computational complexity of the current L 2 optimization solver for IF calculations remains a bottleneck for practical deployment of the IF method in real-time settings. In this paper, we propose a machine learning (ML)-based methodology for determination of IF parameters from a single carotid waveform. We use a sequentially-reduced Feedforward Neural Network (FNN) model for mapping carotid waveforms to the output parameters of the IF method, thereby avoiding the non-convex L 2 minimization problem arising from the conventional IF approach. Our methodology also includes procedures for data pre-processing, model training, and model evaluation. In our model development, we used both clinical and synthetic waveforms. Our clinical database is composed of carotid waveforms from two different sources: the Huntington Medical Research Institutes (HMRI) iPhone Heart Study and the Framingham Heart Study (FHS). In the HMRI and FHS clinical studies, various device platforms such as piezoelectric tonometry, optical tonometry (Vivio), and an iPhone camera were used to measure arterial waveforms. Our blind clinical test shows very strong correlations between IF parameters computed from the FNN-based method and those computed from the standard L 2 optimization-based method (i.e., R≥0.93 and P-value ≤0.005 for each IF parameter). Our results also demonstrate that the performance of the FNN-based IF model introduced in this work is independent of measurement apparatus and of device sampling rate.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alavi et al. (2022) studied this question. Feedforward Neural Network (FNN) model vs. Standard L2 optimization-based method was evaluated on Correlation between IF parameters computed from FNN-based method and standard L2 optimization-based method (R ≥0.93, p=≤0.005). A sequentially-reduced Feedforward Neural Network model strongly correlated with the standard L2 optimization method for determining cardiovascular intrinsic frequencies.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: