Why the study?
Heart-sound recordings are highly susceptible to noise, which complicates clinical interpretation and reduces the reliability of automated diagnostic systems.
A tailored heart-sound-specific wavelet approach improves the denoising and automated classification accuracy of phonocardiogram recordings.
Requires prospective validation before clinical use; extends wavelet options for heart-sound denoising.
Heart-sound recordings are highly susceptible to environmental and physiological noise, which complicates clinical interpretation and reduces the reliability of automated diagnostic systems. Effective denoising is therefore essential for preserving waveform morphology and enabling accurate feature extraction. This study proposes a heart-sound-specific wavelet approach and evaluates its denoising performance in comparison with conventional wavelets and support vector machine (SVM)–based methods. The method was assessed using publicly available datasets, including PASCAL and PhysioNet, which provide diverse normal and pathological phonocardiogram (PCG) recordings. Uniform and Gaussian white noise were added at varying signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) to simulate realistic acquisition environments. Denoising performance was quantified using cross-correlation coefficients, SNR improvement, root-mean-squared error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE). Results demonstrate that the proposed heart-sound wavelet achieved superior noise-suppression capability and a 7% performance gain over commonly used Db and Bior wavelets, while maintaining waveform integrity. Subsequent classification experiments showed that denoising quality directly influenced diagnostic performance: the model achieved 0.87 accuracy, 0.81 precision, and 0.83 sensitivity on the PASCAL dataset, and 0.997 accuracy, 0.946 sensitivity, and 0.944 precision on PhysioNet. These findings highlight the potential of tailored wavelet-based denoising to enhance automated heart-sound analysis and support more robust clinical and embedded diagnostic applications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vigian et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: