Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33425369›Full record

ArticleHealthcare technology letters2020

Explainable artificial intelligence for heart rate variability in ECG signal.

Sanjana K, Sowmya V, Gopalakrishnan E A, Soman K P

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare technology letters, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

4 authors.

Sanjana KCenter for Computational Engineering and Networking, Amrita School of Engineering, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India.
Sowmya VCenter for Computational Engineering and Networking, Amrita School of Engineering, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India.ORCID 0000-0003-3745-6944
Gopalakrishnan E ACenter for Computational Engineering and Networking, Amrita School of Engineering, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India.
Soman K PCenter for Computational Engineering and Networking, Amrita School of Engineering, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electrocardiogram (ECG) signal is one of the most reliable methods to analyse the cardiovascular system. In the literature, there are different deep learning architectures proposed to detect various types of tachycardia diseases, such as atrial fibrillation, ventricular fibrillation, and sinus tachycardia. Even though all types of tachycardia diseases have fast beat rhythm as the common characteristic feature, existing deep learning architectures are trained with the corresponding disease-specific features. Most of the proposed works lack the interpretation and understanding of the results obtained. Hence, the objective of this letter is to explore the features learned by the deep learning models. For the detection of the different types of tachycardia diseases, the authors used a transfer learning approach. In this method, the model is trained with one of the tachycardia diseases called atrial fibrillation and tested with other tachycardia diseases, such as ventricular fibrillation and sinus tachycardia. The analysis was done using different deep learning models, such as RNN, LSTM, GRU, CNN, and RSCNN. RNN achieved an accuracy of 96.47% for atrial fibrillation data set, 90.88% accuracy for CU-ventricular tachycardia data set, and also achieved an accuracy of 94.71, and 94.18% for MIT-BIH malignant ventricular ectopy database for ECG lead I and lead II, respectively. The RNN model could only achieve an accuracy of 23.73% for the sinus tachycardia data set. A similar trend is shown by other models. From the analysis, it was evident that even though tachycardia diseases have fast beat rhythm as their common feature, the model was not able to detect different types of tachycardia diseases. The deep learning model could only detect atrial fibrillation and ventricular fibrillation and failed in the case of sinus tachycardia. From the analysis, they were able to interpret that, along with the fast beat rhythm, the model has learned the absence of P-wave which is a common feature for ventricular fibrillation and atrial fibrillation but sinus tachycardia disease has an upright positive P-wave. The time-based analysis is conducted to find the time complexity of the models. The analysis conveyed that RNN and RSCNN models could achieve better performance with lesser time complexity.

Indexed as

atrial fibrillationcardiac diseasescardiovascular systemconvolutional neural netsCU-ventricular tachycardia datadeep learning architecturesdeep learning modeldeep learning modelsdiseasesECG signalelectrocardiogram signalelectrocardiographylearning (artificial intelligence)medical signal processingMIT-BIH malignant ventricular ectopy databaseRCNN modelsignal classificationsinus tachycardiatachycardia diseaseventricular fibrillation

Identifiers

PMID33425369
PMCPMC7787999

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.