Why the study?
To address the data imbalance problem characterizing ECG data during signal classification using a novel architecture with focal loss.
Does a Dense Convolutional Network architecture with focal loss and image generation improve ECG classification accuracy compared to previous state-of-the-art methods?
Does a Dense Convolutional Network architecture with focal loss and image generation improve ECG classification accuracy compared to previous state-of-the-art methods?
A novel Dense Convolutional Network architecture using image generation and focal loss improves the accuracy of automated ECG classification.
May aid automated ECG interpretation; leaves open prospective clinical validation before practice change.
In this paper, we propose a novel end-to-end learnable architecture based on Dense Convolutional Networks (DCN) for the classification of electrocardiogram (ECG) signals. This architecture is based on two main modules: the first is a generative module and the second is a discriminative one. The task of the generative module is to convert the one dimensional ECG signal into an image by means of fully connected, up-sampling, and convolution layers. The discriminative module takes as input the generated image and carries out feature learning and classification. To handle the data imbalance problem characterizing the ECG data, we propose to use the focal loss (FL) that is based on the idea of reshaping the standard cross-entropy loss such that it reduces the loss assigned to well-classified ECG beats. In the experiments, we validate the method using the well-known MIT-BIH arrhythmia database in four different scenarios, using four classes in the first scenario, five in the second and 12 in the third. Finally, supraventricular versus the other three and ventricular versus the other three from the scenario with four classes are used as the fourth scenario. The results obtained show that the method proposed here achieves a significant accuracy improvement over all previous state-of-the-art methods.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bazi et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: