Letter regarding the article “Detecting atrial fibrillation by deep convolutional neural networks” by Xia et al

Characterization of Atrial Fibrillation Episode Patterns: A Comparative Study

OBJECTIVE

The episode patterns of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) may carry important information on disease progression and complication risk. However, existing studies offer very little insight into to what extent a quantitative characterization of AF patterns can be trusted given the errors in AF detection and various types of shutdown, i.e., poor signal quality and non-wear. This study explores the performance of AF pattern characterizing parameters in the presence of such errors.

METHODS

To evaluate the performance of the parameters AF aggregation and AF density, both previously proposed to characterize AF patterns, the two measures mean normalized difference and the intraclass correlation coefficient are used to describe agreement and reliability, respectively. The parameters are studied on two PhysioNet databases with annotated AF episodes, also accounting for shutdowns due to poor signal quality.

RESULTS

The agreement is similar for both parameters when computed for detector-based and annotated patterns, which is 0.80 for AF aggregation and 0.85 for AF density. On the other hand, the reliability differs substantially, with 0.96 for AF aggregation but only 0.29 for AF density. This finding suggests that AF aggregation is considerably less sensitive to detection errors. The results from comparing three strategies to handle shutdowns vary considerably, with the strategy that disregards the shutdown from the annotated pattern showing the best agreement and reliability.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to its better robustness to detection errors, AF aggregation should be preferred. To further improve performance, future research should put more emphasis on AF pattern characterization.

Considerations on Performance Evaluation of Atrial Fibrillation Detectors

OBJECTIVE

A large number of atrial fibrillation (AF) detectors have been published in recent years, signifying that the comparison of detector performance plays a central role, though not always consistent. The aim of this study is to shed needed light on aspects crucial to the evaluation of detection performance.

METHODS

Three types of AF detector, using either information on rhythm, rhythm and morphology, or segments of ECG samples, are implemented and studied on both real and simulated ECG signals. The properties of different performance measures are investigated, for example, in relation to dataset imbalance.

RESULTS

The results show that performance can differ considerably depending on the way detector output is compared to database annotations, i.e., beat-to-beat, segment-to-segment, or episode-to-episode comparison. Moreover, depending on the type of detector, the results substantiate that physiological and technical factors, e.g., changes in ECG morphology, rate of atrial premature beats, and noise level, can have a considerable influence on performance.

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrates overall strengths and weaknesses of different types of detector, highlights challenges in AF detection, and proposes five recommendations on how to handle data and characterize performance.