Why the study?
Does a knowledge-based approach using abductive interpretation of ECG improve automatic heartbeat classification compared to state-of-the-art methods?
Does a knowledge-based approach using abductive interpretation of ECG improve automatic heartbeat classification compared to state-of-the-art methods?
A pure knowledge-based approach using abductive interpretation of ECG signals significantly improves automatic heartbeat classification performance.
Supports improved automated ECG classification tools; leaves open prospective clinical validation before routine adoption.
OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to prove that automatic beat classification on ECG signals can be effectively solved with a pure knowledge-based approach, using an appropriate set of abstract features obtained from the interpretation of the physiological processes underlying the signal. METHODS: A set of qualitative morphological and rhythm features are obtained for each heartbeat as a result of the abductive interpretation of the ECG. Then, a QRS clustering algorithm is applied in order to reduce the effect of possible errors in the interpretation. Finally, a rule-based classifier assigns a tag to each cluster. RESULTS: The method has been tested with the MIT-BIH Arrhythmia Database records, showing a significantly better performance than any other automatic approach in the state-of-the-art, and even improving most of the assisted approaches that require the intervention of an expert in the process. CONCLUSION: The most relevant issues in ECG classification, related to a large extent to the variability of the signal patterns between different subjects and even in the same subject over time, will be overcome by changing the reasoning paradigm. SIGNIFICANCE: This paper demonstrates the power of an abductive framework for time-series interpretation to make a qualitative leap in the significance of the information extracted from the ECG by automatic methods.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Teijeiro et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: