Back

Can Deep Learning Models Differentiate Atrial Fibrillation from Atrial Flutter?

Ribeiro, E.; Soares, Q. B.; Dias, F. M.; Krieger, J. E.; Gutierrez, M. A.

2023-08-13 cardiovascular medicine
10.1101/2023.08.08.23293815 medRxiv
Show abstract

Atrial Fibrillation (AFib) and Atrial Flutter (AFlut) are prevalent irregular heart rhythms that poses significant risks, particularly for the elderly. While automated detection systems show promise, misdiagnoses are common due to symptom similarities. This study investigates the differentiation of AFib from AFlut using standard 12-lead ECGs from the PhysioNet CinC Challenge 2021 (CinC2021) databases, along with data from a private database. We employed both one dimensional-based (1D) and image-based (2D) Deep Learning models, comparing different 1D and 2D Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) architectures for classification. For 1D models, LiteVGG-11 demonstrated the highest performed, achieving an accuracy (Acc) of 77.91 ({+/-}1.73%), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 87.17 ({+/-}1.29%), F1 score of 76.59 ({+/-}1.90%), specificity (Spe) of 71.69 ({+/-}4.73%), and sensitivity (Se) of 86.53 ({+/-}5.33%). On the other hand, for 2D models the EfficientNet-B2 outperformed other architectures, with an Acc of 75.20 ({+/-}3.38%), AUROC of 85.50 ({+/-}1.14%), F1 of 71.59 ({+/-}3.66%), Spe of 74.76 ({+/-}13.85%) and Se of 75.74 ({+/-}13.85%). Our findings indicate that distinguishing between AFib and AFlut is non-trivial, with 1D signals exhibiting superior performance compared to their 2D counterparts. Furthermore, its noteworthy that the performance of our models on the CinC2021 databases was considerably lower than on our private dataset.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Physiological Measurement
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.8%
2
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
12.4%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 22%
8.5%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 9%
8.5%
5
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
Biomedical Signal Processing and Control
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
7
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
8
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.1%
9
Sensors
39 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.1%
10
Heart Rhythm
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.1%
11
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
14 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.1%
12
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.1%
13
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
49 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
14
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.9%
15
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 17%
1.5%
16
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
17
JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
18
IEEE Access
31 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
19
Biomedicines
66 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
20
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
21
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
22
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
28 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
23
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
24
American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology
32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
25
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%
26
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
27
MethodsX
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%
28
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
38 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%