唐洪

个人信息Personal Information

教授

博士生导师

硕士生导师

性别:男

毕业院校:大连理工大学

学位:博士

所在单位:生物医学工程学院

学科:生物医学工程. 信号与信息处理

办公地点:大连理工大学电信学部

联系方式:tanghong@dlut.edu.cn

电子邮箱:tanghong@dlut.edu.cn

扫描关注

论文成果

当前位置: 唐洪 >> 科学研究 >> 论文成果

Life-threatening false alarm rejection in ICU: using the rule-based and multi-channel information fusion method

点击次数:

论文类型:期刊论文

发表时间:2016-08-01

发表刊物:PHYSIOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

收录刊物:SCIE、Scopus

卷号:37

期号:8

页面范围:1298-1312

ISSN号:0967-3334

关键字:false alarms rejection; life-threatening arrhythmias; intensive care unit monitor; multi-channel information fusion; rule-based alarm determining; ECG

摘要:False alarm (FA) rates as high as 86% have been reported in intensive care unit monitors. High FA rates decrease quality of care by slowing staff response times while increasing patient burdens and stresses. In this study, we proposed a rule-based and multi-channel information fusion method for accurately classifying the true or false alarms for five life-threatening arrhythmias: asystole (ASY), extreme bradycardia (EBR), extreme tachycardia (ETC), ventricular tachycardia (VTA) and ventricular flutter/fibrillation (VFB). The proposed method consisted of five steps: (1) signal pre-processing, (2) feature detection and validation, (3) true/false alarm determination for each channel, (4) 'real-time' true/false alarm determination and (5) 'retrospective' true/false alarm determination (if needed). Up to four signal channels, that is, two electrocardiogram signals, one arterial blood pressure and/or one photoplethysmogram signal were included in the analysis. Two events were set for the method validation: event 1 for 'real-time' and event 2 for 'retrospective' alarm classification. The results showed that 100% true positive ratio (i.e. sensitivity) on the training set were obtained for ASY, EBR, ETC and VFB types, and 94% for VTA type, accompanied by the corresponding true negative ratio (i.e. specificity) results of 93%, 81%, 78%, 85% and 50% respectively, resulting in the score values of 96.50, 90.70, 88.89, 92.31 and 64.90, as well as with a final score of 80.57 for event 1 and 79.12 for event 2. For the test set, the proposed method obtained the score of 88.73 for ASY, 77.78 for EBR, 89.92 for ETC, 67.74 for VFB and 61.04 for VTA types, with the final score of 71.68 for event 1 and 75.91 for event 2.