Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30157512›Full record

ReviewYearbook of medical informatics2018

Deep Learning on 1-D Biosignals: a Taxonomy-based Survey.

Nagarajan Ganapathy, Ramakrishnan Swaminathan, Thomas M Deserno

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Yearbook of medical informatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Classifying sepsis from photoplethysmography.Health information science and systems · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Deep Learning in Physiological Signal Data: A Survey.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Sensor, Signal, and Imaging Informatics in 2017.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2018
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Nagarajan GanapathyPeter L. Reichertz Institute for Medical Informatics, University of Braunschweig - Institute of Technology and Hannover Medical School, Braunschweig, Germany.
Ramakrishnan SwaminathanIndian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India.
Thomas M DesernoPeter L. Reichertz Institute for Medical Informatics, University of Braunschweig - Institute of Technology and Hannover Medical School, Braunschweig, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDeep learning models such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have been applied successfully to medical imaging, but biomedical signal analysis has yet to fully benefit from this novel approach. Our survey aims at (i) reviewing deep learning techniques for biosignal analysis in computer- aided diagnosis; and (ii) deriving a taxonomy for organizing the growing number of applications in the field.

methodsA comprehensive literature research was performed using PubMed, Scopus, and ACM. Deep learning models were classified with respect to the (i) origin, (ii) dimension, and (iii) type of the biosignal as input to the deep learning model; (iv) the goal of the application; (v) the size and (vi) type of ground truth data; (vii) the type and (viii) schedule of learning the network; and (ix) the topology of the model.

resultsBetween January 2010 and December 2017, a total 71 papers were published on the topic. The majority (n = 36) of papers are on electrocariography (ECG) signals. Most applications (n = 25) aim at detection of patterns, while only a few (n = 6) at predection of events. Out of 36 ECG-based works, many (n = 17) relate to multi-lead ECG. Other biosignals that have been identified in the survey are electromyography, phonocardiography, photoplethysmography, electrooculography, continuous glucose monitoring, acoustic respiratory signal, blood pressure, and electrodermal activity signal, while ballistocardiography or seismocardiography have yet to be analyzed using deep learning techniques. In supervised and unsupervised applications, CNNs and restricted Boltzmann machines are the most and least frequently used, (n = 34) and (n = 15), respectively.

conclusionOur key-code classification of relevant papers was used to cluster the approaches that have been published to date and demonstrated a large variability of research with respect to data, application, and network topology. Future research is expected to focus on the standardization of deep learning architectures and on the optimization of the network parameters to increase performance and robustness. Furthermore, application-driven approaches and updated training data from mobile recordings are needed.

Indexed as

ElectrodiagnosisMachine LearningElectrocardiographyHumansNeural Networks, Computer

Identifiers

PMID30157512
PMCPMC6115218

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.