Digital DC-Reconstruction of AC-Coupled Electrophysiological Signals with a Single Inverting Filter

Since the introduction of digital electrocardiographs, high-pass filters have been necessary for successful analog-to-digital conversion with a reasonable amplitude resolution. On the other hand, such high-pass filters may distort the diagnostically significant ST-segment of the ECG, which can result in a misleading diagnosis. We present an inverting filter that successfully undoes the effects of a 0.05 Hz single pole high-pass filter. The inverting filter has been tested on more than 1600 clinical ECGs with one-minute durations and produces a negligible mean RMS-error of 3.1*10(-8) LSB. Alternative, less strong inverting filters have also been tested, as have different applications of the filters with respect to rounding of the signals after filtering. A design scheme for the alternative inverting filters has been suggested, based on the maximum strength of the filter. With the use of the suggested filters, it is possible to recover the original DC-coupled ECGs from AC-coupled ECGs, at least when a 0.05 Hz first order digital single pole high-pass filter is used for the AC-coupling

Comparison of automated interval measurements by widely used algorithms in digital electrocardiographs

Background: Automated measurements of electrocardiographic (ECG) intervals by current-generation digital electrocardiographs are critical to computer-based ECG diagnostic statements, to serial comparison of ECGs, and to epidemiological studies of ECG findings in populations. A previous study demonstrated generally small but often significant systematic differences among 4 algorithms widely used for automated ECG in the United States and that measurement differences could be related to the degree of abnormality of the underlying tracing. Since that publication, some algorithms have been adjusted, whereas other large manufacturers of automated ECGs have asked to participate in an extension of this comparison. Methods: Seven widely used automated algorithms for computer-based interpretation participated in this blinded study of 800 digitized ECGs provided by the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium. All tracings were different from the study of 4 algorithms reported in 2014, and the selected population was heavily weighted toward groups with known effects on the QT interval: included were 200 normal subjects, 200 normal subjects receiving moxifloxacin as part of an active control arm of thorough QT studies, 200 subjects with genetically proved long QT syndrome type 1 (LQT1), and 200 subjects with genetically proved long QT syndrome Type 2 (LQT2). Results: For the entire population of 800 subjects, pairwise differences between algorithms for each mean interval value were clinically small, even where statistically significant, ranging from 0.2 to 3.6 milliseconds for the PR interval, 0.1 to 8.1 milliseconds for QRS duration, and 0.1 to 9.3 milliseconds for QT interval. The mean value of all paired differences among algorithms was higher in the long QT groups than in normals for both QRS duration and QT intervals. Differences in mean QRS duration ranged from 0.2 to 13.3 milliseconds in the LQT1 subjects and from 0.2 to 11.0 milliseconds in the LQT2 subjects. Differences in measured QT duration (not corrected for heart rate) ranged from 0.2 to 10.5 milliseconds in the LQT1 subjects and from 0.9 to 12.8 milliseconds in the LQT2 subjects. Conclusions: Among current-generation computer-based electrocardiographs, clinically small but statistically significant differences exist between ECG interval measurements by individual algorithms. Measurement differences between algorithms for QRS duration and for QT interval are larger in long QT interval subjects than in normal subjects. Comparisons of population study norms should be aware of small systematic differences in interval measurements due to different algorithm methodologies, within-individual interval measurement comparisons should use comparable methods, and further attempts to harmonize interval measurement methodologies are warranted

Human Identification by Cross-Correlation and Pattern Matching of Personalized Heartbeat: Influence of ECG Leads and Reference Database Size

Human identification (ID) is a biometric task, comparing single input sample to many stored templates to identify an individual in a reference database. This paper aims to present the perspectives of personalized heartbeat pattern for reliable ECG-based identification. The investigations are using a database with 460 pairs of 12-lead resting electrocardiograms (ECG) with 10-s durations recorded at time-instants T1 and T2 > T1 + 1 year. Intra-subject long-term ECG stability and inter-subject variability of personalized PQRST (500 ms) and QRS (100 ms) patterns is quantified via cross-correlation, amplitude ratio and pattern matching between T1 and T2 using 7 features × 12-leads. Single and multi-lead ID models are trained on the first 230 ECG pairs. Their validation on 10, 20, ... 230 reference subjects (RS) from the remaining 230 ECG pairs shows: (i) two best single-lead ID models using lead II for a small population RS = (10–140) with identification accuracy AccID = (89.4–67.2)% and aVF for a large population RS = (140–230) with AccID = (67.2–63.9)%; (ii) better performance of the 6-lead limb vs. the 6-lead chest ID model—(91.4–76.1)% vs. (90.9–70)% for RS = (10–230); (iii) best performance of the 12-lead ID model—(98.4–87.4)% for RS = (10–230). The tolerable reference database size, keeping AccID > 80%, is RS = 30 in the single-lead ID scenario (II); RS = 50 (6 chest leads); RS = 100 (6 limb leads), RS > 230—maximal population in this study (12-lead ECG)

Perspectives of human verification via binary QRS template matching of single-lead and 12-lead electrocardiogram

<div><p>Objective</p><p>This study aims to validate the 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) as a biometric modality based on two straightforward binary QRS template matching characteristics. Different perspectives of the human verification problem are considered, regarding the optimal lead selection and stability over sample size, gender, age, heart rate (HR).</p><p>Methods</p><p>A clinical 12-lead resting ECG database, including a population of 460 subjects with two-session recordings (>1 year apart) is used. Cost-effective strategies for extraction of personalized QRS patterns (100ms) and binary template matching estimate similarity in the time scale (matching time) and dissimilarity in the amplitude scale (mismatch area). The two-class person verification task, taking the decision to validate or to reject the subject identity is managed by linear discriminant analysis (LDA). Non-redundant LDA models for different lead configurations (I,II,III,aVF,aVL,aVF,V1-V6) are trained on the first half of 230 subjects by stepwise feature selection until maximization of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC). The operating point on the training ROC at equal error rate (EER) is tested on the independent dataset (second half of 230 subjects) to report unbiased validation of test-ROC AUC and true verification rate (TVR = 100-EER). The test results are further evaluated in groups by sample size, gender, age, HR.</p><p>Results and discussion</p><p>The optimal QRS pattern projection for single-lead ECG biometric modality is found in the frontal plane sector (60°-0°) with best (Test-AUC/TVR) for lead II (0.941/86.8%) and slight accuracy drop for -aVR (-0.017/-1.4%), I (-0.01/-1.5%). Chest ECG leads have degrading accuracy from V1 (0.885/80.6%) to V6 (0.799/71.8%). The multi-lead ECG improves verification: 6-chest (0.97/90.9%), 6-limb (0.986/94.3%), 12-leads (0.995/97.5%). The QRS pattern matching model shows stable performance for verification of 10 to 230 individuals; insignificant degradation of TVR in women by (1.2–3.6%), adults ≥70 years (3.7%), younger <40 years (1.9%), HR<60bpm (1.2%), HR>90bpm (3.9%), no degradation for HR change (0 to >20bpm).</p></div

Performance of 12-lead LDA model in function of the number of subjects in the test database.

<p>TAR, TRR and TVR are reported as mean value (min-max range) after test of all possible combinations of 10, 50, 100, 150, 200, 230 subjects within the total test database with 230 subjects. The differences between groups are not statistically significant (p>0.05).</p

Age-specific performance of 12-lead LDA model, evaluated for 230 subjects in the test database, divided into six age groups.

<p>The differences between groups are not statistically significant (p>0.05).</p

Test-TVR of single and multi-lead ECG sets.

<p>Single leads are ordered according to their spatial neighborhood, i.e. limb leads are presented in ascending order of their spatial angle in the frontal plane (given in brackets, from -30° to 120°); chest leads V1-V6 are presented according to their standard order in the horizontal plane.</p