Why the study?
Fibrillatory waves are important for diagnosing AF, motivating a novel benchmarking approach for single-lead ECG f-wave extraction methods without requiring ground truth f-waves.
A novel machine learning approach using random forest classification demonstrates that PCA-based f-wave extraction outperforms average beat subtraction for AF detection in single-lead ECGs.
May enhance single-lead AF classification; leaves open prospective clinical validation before adoption.
Introduction: The presence of fibrillatory waves (f-waves) is important in the diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF), which has motivated the development of methods for f-wave extraction. We propose a novel approach to benchmarking methods designed for single-lead ECG analysis, building on the hypothesis that better-performing AF classification using features computed from the extracted f-waves implies better-performing extraction. The approach is well-suited for processing large Holter data sets annotated with respect to the presence of AF. Methods: Three data sets with a total of 300 two- or three-lead Holter recordings, performed in the USA, Israel and Japan, were used as well as a simulated single-lead data set. Four existing extraction methods based on either average beat subtraction or principal component analysis (PCA) were evaluated. A random forest classifier was used for window-based AF classification. Performance was measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC). Results: The best performance was found for PCA-based extraction, resulting in AUROCs in the ranges 0.77--0.83, 0.62--0.78, and 0.87--0.89 for the data sets from USA, Israel, and Japan, respectively, when analyzed across leads; the AUROC of the simulated single-lead, noisy data set was 0.98. Conclusions: This study provides a novel approach to evaluating the performance of f-wave extraction methods, offering the advantage of not using ground truth f-waves for evaluation, thus being able to leverage real data sets for evaluation. The code is open source (following publication).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ben-Moshe et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: