Why the study?
A reference database of simulated ECG signals was needed to investigate and compare the performance of methods for extracting atrial fibrillatory waves in AF.
A new reference database of simulated ECG signals in AF facilitates the comparison and performance evaluation of different f-wave extraction methods.
New simulated AF ECG database enables standardized f-wave extraction testing; leaves open real-world clinical validation.
OBJECTIVE: This study proposes a reference database, composed of a large number of simulated ECG signals in atrial fibrillation (AF), for investigating the performance of methods for extraction of atrial fibrillatory waves (f-waves). APPROACH: The simulated signals are produced using a recently published and validated model of 12-lead ECGs in AF. The database is composed of eight signal sets together accounting for a wide range of characteristics known to represent major challenges in f-wave extraction, including high heart rates, high morphological QRST variability, and the presence of ventricular premature beats. Each set contains 30 5 min signals with different f-wave amplitudes. The database is used for the purpose of investigating the statistical association between different indices, designed for use with either real or simulated signals. MAIN RESULTS: Using the database, available at the PhysioNet repository of physiological signals, the performance indices unnormalized ventricular residue (uVR), designed for real signals, and the root mean square error, designed for simulated signals, were found to exhibit the strongest association, leading to the recommendation that uVR should be used when characterizing performance in real signals. SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed database facilitates comparison of the performance of different f-wave extraction methods and makes it possible to express performance in terms of the error between simulated and extracted f-wave signals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alcaraz et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: