Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Classification results of the proposed methods with the two different classifiers_
| Classifier | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| SVM-RBF | 99.57 | 99.89 | 99.83 |
| NN | 97.58 | 99.39 | 99.03 |
– Comparison of the classification efficiency of the proposed method and some of studies performed based on the same database_
| Literature | year | Features | Classifier | Classes | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Martis et al. [20] | 2012 | PCA | SVM-RBF | 5 | 98.11% |
| Martis et al. [14] | 2013 | DWT + PCA | SVM-RBF | 5 | 96.92% |
| DWT + PCA | NN | 5 | 98.78% | ||
| Osowski and Linh [19] | 2001 | HOS | Hybrid fuzzy | 7 | 96.06% |
| NN | |||||
| Martis et al. [27] | 2013 | Cumulant + PCA | NN | 5 | 94.52% |
| Elhaj et al. [24] | 2016 | PCA + DWT + HOS + | SVM-RBF | 5 | 98.91% |
| ICA | |||||
| NN | 5 | 98.90% | |||
| Acharya et al [28] | 2017 | Raw data | CNN | 5 | 94.03 |
| Yang et al. [29] | 2018 | PCAnet | Linear SVM | 5 | 97.94 |
| Oh et al. [30] | 2018 | Raw data | CNN-LSTM | 5 | 98.10 |
| Proposed | DWT+HOS | SVM-RBF | 5 | 99.83 | |
| NN | 5 | 99.03 |
A summary table of ECG heartbeats classified as per ANSI/AAMI EC57:1998 standard [25]_
| ANSI/AAMI classes | Non-ectopic (N) | Supraventricular (S) | Ventricular (V) | Fusion (F) | Unknown (U) |
| Normal (N) | Aberrated atrial premature (A) | Ventricular escape (V) | Fusion of ventricular and normal (F) | Unclassifiable (U) | |
| Left bundle branch block (LBBB) | Atrial premature (a) | Premature ventricular contraction (E) | Paced (p) | ||
| MIT-BIH classes | Right bundle branch block (RBBB) | Supraventricular premature (S) | Fusion of paced and normal (f) | ||
| Nodal (junctional) escape (j) | Nodal (junctional) premature (J) | ||||
| Atrial escape beat (e) | |||||