Why the study?
Poor signal quality in handheld ECG screening for AF often leads to transient noise and false AF detections, resulting in an extensive need for expert review.
Does a CNN for transient noise identification reduce false AF detections in handheld ECG screening for atrial fibrillation?
Does a CNN for transient noise identification reduce false AF detections in handheld ECG screening for atrial fibrillation?
Implementing a CNN to identify transient noise in handheld ECG recordings significantly reduces false atrial fibrillation detections, potentially decreasing the time and cost of expert review.
May reduce false AF detections from handheld ECG noise; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
Screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) with a handheld device for recording the ECG is becoming increasingly popular. The poorer signal quality of such ECGs may lead to false detection of AF, often caused by transient noise. Consequently, the need for expert review in AF screening can become extensive. A convolutional neural network (CNN) is proposed for transient noise identification in AF detection. The network is trained using the events produced by a QRS detector, classified into either true beat detections or false detections. The CNN and a low-complexity AF detector are trained and tested using the StrokeStop I database, containing 30-s ECGs from mass screening for AF in the elderly population. Performance evaluation of the CNN-based quality control using a subset of the database resulted in sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 96.4, 96.9, and 96.9%, respectively. By inserting the CNN before the AF detector, the false AF detections were reduced by 22.5% without any loss in sensitivity. The results show that the number of recordings calling for expert review can be significantly reduced thanks to the identification of transient noise. The reduction of false AF detections is directly linked to the time and cost spent on expert review.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Halvaei et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: