Why the study?
Arrhythmia seriously affects human health, and its identification and diagnosis is an effective means of preventing most heart diseases.
Does the BiLSTM-Treg algorithm improve the classification accuracy of arrhythmias compared to other methods?
Does the BiLSTM-Treg algorithm improve the classification accuracy of arrhythmias compared to other methods?
The proposed BiLSTM-Treg algorithm achieves a high classification accuracy of 99.32% for arrhythmia detection using ECG signals, offering improved interpretability.
Arrhythmia is a cardiovascular disease that seriously affects human health. The identification and diagnosis of arrhythmia is an effective means of preventing most heart diseases. In this paper, a BiLSTM-Treg algorithm that integrates rhythm information is proposed to realize the automatic classification of arrhythmia. Firstly, the discrete wavelet transform is used to denoise the ECG signal, based on which we performed heartbeat segmentation and preserved the timing relationship between heartbeats. Then, different heartbeat segment lengths and the BiLSTM network model are used to conduct multiple experiments to select the optimal heartbeat segment length. Finally, the tree regularization method is used to optimize the BiLSTM network model to improve classification accuracy. And the interpretability of the neural network model is analyzed by analyzing the simulated decision tree generated in the tree regularization method. This method divides the heartbeat into five categories (nonectopic (N), supraventricular ectopic (S), ventricular ectopic (V), fused heartbeats (F), and unknown heartbeats (Q)) and is validated on the MIT-BIH arrhythmia database. The results show that the overall classification accuracy of the algorithm is 99.32%. Compared with other methods of classifying heartbeat, the BiLSTM-Treg network model algorithm proposed in this paper not only improves the classification accuracy and obtains higher sensitivity and positive predictive value but also has higher interpretability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yao et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: