Cited by 105Phonocardiography and Auscultation TechniquesArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareECG Monitoring and Analysis

A Robust Interpretable Deep Learning Classifier for Heart Anomaly Detection Without Segmentation

Open access
Dissanayake, Theekshana, Fernando, Tharindu, Denman, Simon, Sridharan, Sridha, Ghaemmaghami, Houman, Fookes, Clinton·2021·IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics

Abstract

Traditionally, abnormal heart sound classification is framed as a three-stage process. The first stage involves segmenting the phonocardiogram to detect fundamental heart sounds; after which features are extracted and classification is performed. Some researchers in the field argue the segmentation step is an unwanted computational burden, whereas others embrace it as a prior step to feature extraction. When comparing accuracies achieved by studies that have segmented heart sounds before analysis with those who have overlooked that step, the question of whether to segment heart sounds before feature extraction is still open. In this study, we explicitly examine the importance of heart sound segmentation as a prior step for heart sound classification, and then seek to apply the obtained insights to propose a robust classifier for abnormal heart sound detection. Furthermore, recognizing the pressing need for explainable Artificial Intelligence (AI) models in the medical domain, we also unveil hidden representations learned by the classifier using model interpretation techniques. Experimental results demonstrate that the segmentation which can be learned by the model plays an essential role in abnormal heart sound classification. Our new classifier is also shown to be robust, stable and most importantly, explainable, with an accuracy of almost 100% on the widely used PhysioNet dataset.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/jbhi.2020.3027910

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • High-level and human-understandable feature representations are usually obtained by an opaque model, such as a pre-trained CNN model in Reference [60], which somewhat offsets the benefits of using interpretable feature representations for anomaly detection.

    “However, we note that high-level and human-understandable feature representations are usually obtained by an opaque model, such as a pre-trained CNN model in Reference [60], which somewhat offsets the benefits of using interpretable feature representations for anomaly detection.”

    From A Survey on Explainable Anomaly Detection (2024) · cites this paper as [60]

  • [60] pre-extracted feature representations (MFCCs/spectrogram); SHAP + Occlusion maps is efficient.

    “Simple, stable and”

    From A Survey on Explainable Anomaly Detection (2024) · cites this paper as [60]

  • [60] pre-extracted feature representations (MFCCs/spectrogram); SHAP + Occlusion maps is stable.

    “Simple, stable and”

    From A Survey on Explainable Anomaly Detection (2024) · cites this paper as [60]

  • [60] pre-extracted feature representations (MFCCs/spectrogram); SHAP + Occlusion maps is simple.

    “Simple, stable and”

    From A Survey on Explainable Anomaly Detection (2024) · cites this paper as [60]

  • [60] pre-extracted feature representations (MFCCs/spectrogram); SHAP + Occlusion maps is only applicable to DNN architecture.

    “Only applicable to”

    From A Survey on Explainable Anomaly Detection (2024) · cites this paper as [60]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 35 · Cited by 105

Authors
Dissanayake, T., Fernando, T., Denman, S., Sridharan, S., Ghaemmaghami, H., & Fookes, C.
Affiliations
Queensland University of Technology (AU)
Venue
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
Published
2021-06
Volume
25
Issue
6
Pages
2162-2171
ISSN
  • 2168-2194 (ISSN-L)
  • 2168-2208
OpenAlex
W3090286224
Cited by
105
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 1
FWCI
8.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Phonocardiography and Auscultation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › ECG Monitoring and Analysis
Keywords
phonocardiogram, heart sound segmentation, explainable deep learning, explainable AI, model robustness, hidden representations, PhysioNet dataset, cardiac anomaly detection
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Phonocardiography, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted

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