4.6 Article

An hybrid ECG-based deep network for the early identification of high-risk to major cardiovascular events for hypertension patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL INFORMATICS
卷 113, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2020.103648

关键词

eHealth; Deep learning; Time series classification; Early hypertension identification; Signal processing

资金

  1. AMICO project - National Programs (PON) of the Italian Ministry of Education, Universities and Research (MIUR) [ARS0100900, 1989]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes a novel time series-based approach that can accurately distinguish cardiovascular high-risk and low-risk hypertensive patients through the analysis of electrocardiographic holter signals. The experimental results demonstrate excellent classification accuracy with an average accuracy of 98%.
Background and Objective: As the population becomes older and more overweight, the number of potential high-risk subjects with hypertension continues to increase. ICT technologies can provide valuable support for the early assessment of such cases since the practice of conducting medical examinations for the early recognition of high-risk subjects affected by hypertension is quite difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. Methods: This paper presents a novel time series-based approach for the early identification of increases in hypertension to discriminate between cardiovascular high-risk and low-risk hypertensive patients through the analyses of electrocardiographic holter signals. Results: The experimental results show that the proposed model achieves excellent results in terms of classification accuracy compared with the state-of-the-art. In terms of performances, our model reaches an average accuracy at 98%, Sensitivity and Specificity achieve both an average value at 97%. Conclusion: The analysis of the whole time series shows promising results in terms of highlighting the tiny differences between subjects affected by hypertension.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据