{"title":"人工智能检测远程监控数据中的噪声事件","authors":"Nobuhiro Nishii MD, PhD, Kensuke Baba PhD, Ken'ichi Morooka PhD, Haruto Shirae, Tomofumi Mizuno MD, Takuro Masuda MD, Akira Ueoka MD, PhD, Saori Asada MD, PhD, Masakazu Miyamoto MD, Kentaro Ejiri MD, PhD, Satoshi Kawada MD, PhD, Koji Nakagawa MD, PhD, Kazufumi Nakamura MD, PhD, Hiroshi Morita MD, PhD, Shinsuke Yuasa MD, PhD","doi":"10.1002/joa3.13037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs) can detect various events early. However, the diagnostic ability of CIEDs has not been sufficient, especially for lead failure. The first notification of lead failure was almost noise events, which were detected as arrhythmia by the CIED. A human must analyze the intracardiac electrogram to accurately detect lead failure. However, the number of arrhythmic events is too large for human analysis. Artificial intelligence (AI) seems to be helpful in the early and accurate detection of lead failure before human analysis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To test whether a neural network can be trained to precisely identify noise events in the intracardiac electrogram of RM data.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We analyzed 21 918 RM data consisting of 12 925 and 1884 Medtronic and Boston Scientific data, respectively. Among these, 153 and 52 Medtronic and Boston Scientific data, respectively, were diagnosed as noise events by human analysis. In Medtronic, 306 events, including 153 noise events and randomly selected 153 out of 12 692 nonnoise events, were analyzed in a five-fold cross-validation with a convolutional neural network. The Boston Scientific data were analyzed similarly.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The precision rate, recall rate, F1 score, accuracy rate, and the area under the curve were 85.8 ± 4.0%, 91.6 ± 6.7%, 88.4 ± 2.0%, 88.0 ± 2.0%, and 0.958 ± 0.021 in Medtronic and 88.4 ± 12.8%, 81.0 ± 9.3%, 84.1 ± 8.3%, 84.2 ± 8.3% and 0.928 ± 0.041 in Boston Scientific. Five-fold cross-validation with a weighted loss function could increase the recall rate.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>AI can accurately detect noise events. AI analysis may be helpful for detecting lead failure events early and accurately.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15174,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Arrhythmia","volume":"40 3","pages":"560-577"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joa3.13037","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Artificial intelligence to detect noise events in remote monitoring data\",\"authors\":\"Nobuhiro Nishii MD, PhD, Kensuke Baba PhD, Ken'ichi Morooka PhD, Haruto Shirae, Tomofumi Mizuno MD, Takuro Masuda MD, Akira Ueoka MD, PhD, Saori Asada MD, PhD, Masakazu Miyamoto MD, Kentaro Ejiri MD, PhD, Satoshi Kawada MD, PhD, Koji Nakagawa MD, PhD, Kazufumi Nakamura MD, PhD, Hiroshi Morita MD, PhD, Shinsuke Yuasa MD, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/joa3.13037\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs) can detect various events early. However, the diagnostic ability of CIEDs has not been sufficient, especially for lead failure. The first notification of lead failure was almost noise events, which were detected as arrhythmia by the CIED. A human must analyze the intracardiac electrogram to accurately detect lead failure. However, the number of arrhythmic events is too large for human analysis. Artificial intelligence (AI) seems to be helpful in the early and accurate detection of lead failure before human analysis.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>To test whether a neural network can be trained to precisely identify noise events in the intracardiac electrogram of RM data.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We analyzed 21 918 RM data consisting of 12 925 and 1884 Medtronic and Boston Scientific data, respectively. Among these, 153 and 52 Medtronic and Boston Scientific data, respectively, were diagnosed as noise events by human analysis. In Medtronic, 306 events, including 153 noise events and randomly selected 153 out of 12 692 nonnoise events, were analyzed in a five-fold cross-validation with a convolutional neural network. The Boston Scientific data were analyzed similarly.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The precision rate, recall rate, F1 score, accuracy rate, and the area under the curve were 85.8 ± 4.0%, 91.6 ± 6.7%, 88.4 ± 2.0%, 88.0 ± 2.0%, and 0.958 ± 0.021 in Medtronic and 88.4 ± 12.8%, 81.0 ± 9.3%, 84.1 ± 8.3%, 84.2 ± 8.3% and 0.928 ± 0.041 in Boston Scientific. Five-fold cross-validation with a weighted loss function could increase the recall rate.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>AI can accurately detect noise events. AI analysis may be helpful for detecting lead failure events early and accurately.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Arrhythmia\",\"volume\":\"40 3\",\"pages\":\"560-577\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joa3.13037\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Arrhythmia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joa3.13037\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Arrhythmia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joa3.13037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Artificial intelligence to detect noise events in remote monitoring data
Background
Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs) can detect various events early. However, the diagnostic ability of CIEDs has not been sufficient, especially for lead failure. The first notification of lead failure was almost noise events, which were detected as arrhythmia by the CIED. A human must analyze the intracardiac electrogram to accurately detect lead failure. However, the number of arrhythmic events is too large for human analysis. Artificial intelligence (AI) seems to be helpful in the early and accurate detection of lead failure before human analysis.
Objective
To test whether a neural network can be trained to precisely identify noise events in the intracardiac electrogram of RM data.
Methods
We analyzed 21 918 RM data consisting of 12 925 and 1884 Medtronic and Boston Scientific data, respectively. Among these, 153 and 52 Medtronic and Boston Scientific data, respectively, were diagnosed as noise events by human analysis. In Medtronic, 306 events, including 153 noise events and randomly selected 153 out of 12 692 nonnoise events, were analyzed in a five-fold cross-validation with a convolutional neural network. The Boston Scientific data were analyzed similarly.
Results
The precision rate, recall rate, F1 score, accuracy rate, and the area under the curve were 85.8 ± 4.0%, 91.6 ± 6.7%, 88.4 ± 2.0%, 88.0 ± 2.0%, and 0.958 ± 0.021 in Medtronic and 88.4 ± 12.8%, 81.0 ± 9.3%, 84.1 ± 8.3%, 84.2 ± 8.3% and 0.928 ± 0.041 in Boston Scientific. Five-fold cross-validation with a weighted loss function could increase the recall rate.
Conclusions
AI can accurately detect noise events. AI analysis may be helpful for detecting lead failure events early and accurately.