2018
DOI: 10.1088/1361-6579/aad9ee
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Parallel use of a convolutional neural network and bagged tree ensemble for the classification of Holter ECG

Abstract: This F1 score led to shared rank #2 in the follow-up PhysioNet/CinC Challenge 2017 ranking.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
28
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Since 11 features were extracted from the EEG signal, we also extracted 7 features from ECG activity as heart rate or its changes; the rest were based on EMG and airflow signals. For QRS detection, we used a method designed for 1-lead Holter-ECG processing [4].…”
Section: Used Featuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since 11 features were extracted from the EEG signal, we also extracted 7 features from ECG activity as heart rate or its changes; the rest were based on EMG and airflow signals. For QRS detection, we used a method designed for 1-lead Holter-ECG processing [4].…”
Section: Used Featuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With this performance we obtained the third place out of 84 participants in the final rank of the follow-up challenge (first place: F 1n = 0.921; F 1a = 0.857; F 1o = 0.766 and F 1 = 0.848 [40]; second place: F 1n = 0.908; F 1a = 0.841; F 1o = 0.745 and F 1 = 0.832 [41] (https://groups.google.com/forum/ #!topic/physionet-challenges/qA2iUfQmRtc). A comparative summary of the algorithms [40][41][42][43], which obtained the top five scores in the follow-up phase of the Physionet Challenge 2017, is reported in Table 3. [42] 150 Multi-layer Cascaded Binary F 1 = 0.8294 Plesinger [43] 60 Neural Netwok + Bagged Tree Ensemble F 1 = 0.8278 Notably, our performance on the hidden test set of the official challenge phase was: F 1n = 0.911; F 1a = 0.784; F 1o = 0.739 and F 1 = 0.812 (obtaining the 12th place in the official ranking list).…”
Section: Physionet Challenge 2017 Databasementioning
confidence: 99%
“…A comparative summary of the algorithms [40][41][42][43], which obtained the top five scores in the follow-up phase of the Physionet Challenge 2017, is reported in Table 3. [42] 150 Multi-layer Cascaded Binary F 1 = 0.8294 Plesinger [43] 60 Neural Netwok + Bagged Tree Ensemble F 1 = 0.8278 Notably, our performance on the hidden test set of the official challenge phase was: F 1n = 0.911; F 1a = 0.784; F 1o = 0.739 and F 1 = 0.812 (obtaining the 12th place in the official ranking list). The increase in performance achieved from the official phase to the follow-up phase suggests the importance of having reliable annotations for the algorithm training and evaluation.…”
Section: Physionet Challenge 2017 Databasementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) have demonstrated usefulness in a wide variety of industrial and scientific fields, including image recognition 11 , speech recognition 12 , biological signal processing and reinforcement learning 13 . CNNs have proven to be superior to traditional signal processing techniques in ECG and polysomnography classification during several challenges 14,15 and have been used in variety of EEG processing tasks 16 , for example iEEG noise detection 17 , epileptic seizure detection 18 and seizure prediction 19 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%