Reduction of false arrhythmia alarms using signal selection and machine learning
Open accessAbstract
In this paper, we propose an algorithm that classifies whether a generated cardiac arrhythmia alarm is true or false. The large number of false alarms in intensive care is a severe issue. The noise peaks caused by alarms can be high and in a noisy environment nurses can experience stress and fatigue. In addition, patient safety is compromised because reaction time of the caregivers to true alarms is reduced. The data for the algorithm development consisted of records of electrocardiogram (ECG), arterial blood pressure, and photoplethysmogram signals in which an alarm for either asystole, extreme bradycardia, extreme tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation or flutter, or ventricular tachycardia occurs. First, heart beats are extracted from every signal. Next, the algorithm selects the most reliable signal pair from the available signals by comparing how well the detected beats match between different signals based on F 1 -score and selecting the best match. From the selected signal pair, arrhythmia specific features, such as heart rate features and signal purity index are computed for the alarm classification. The classification is performed with five separate Random Forest models. In addition, information on the local noise level of the selected ECG lead is added to the classification. The algorithm was trained and evaluated with the PhysioNet/Computing in Cardiology Challenge 2015 data set. In the test set the overall true positive rates were 93 and 95% and true negative rates 80 and 83%, respectively for events with no information and events with information after the alarm. The overall challenge scores were 77.39 and 81.58.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A self-learning alarm system via machine learning might be practicable for the near future.
“Thus, a self-learning alarm system via machine learning might be practicable for the near future [50].”
From Clinical requirements of future patient monitoring in the intensive care unit: qualitative study (2019) · cites this paper as [50]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 24 · Cited by 48
- Authors
- Eerikäinen, L. M., Vanschoren, J., Rooijakkers, M. J., Vullings, R., & Aarts, R. M.
- Affiliations
- Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
- Philips (Netherlands) (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Eerikäinen, Linda M
- Vullings, Rik
- Venue
- Physiological Measurement
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 2016-07-25
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1204-1216
- ISSN
- 0967-3334 (ISSN-L)
- 1361-6579
- OpenAlex
- W2478248559
- Cited by
- 48
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 4.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Physiological Measurement (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- TU/e Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion)
- TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › ECG Monitoring and Analysis
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Non-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
- Keywords
- false alarm reduction, signal selection, ECG, arterial blood pressure, photoplethysmogram, asystole, bradycardia, tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, ventricular tachycardia, random forest, intensive care monitoring
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Arrhythmias, Cardiac, Critical Care, Electrocardiography, False Positive Reactions, Heart Rate, Humans, Monitoring, Physiologic, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Clinical Alarms, Signal-To-Noise Ratio
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review