Reliable Deep Learning–Based Detection of Misplaced Chest Electrodes During Electrocardiogram Recording: Algorithm Development and Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) is the most commonly used method to diagnose patients with cardiovascular diseases. However, there are a number of possible misinterpretations of the ECG that can be caused by several different factors, such as the misplacement of chest electrodes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to build advanced algorithms to detect precordial (chest) electrode misplacement. METHODS: In this study, we used traditional machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) to autodetect the misplacement of electrodes V1 and V2 using features from the resultant ECG. The algorithms were trained using data extracted from high-resolution body surface potential maps of patients who were diagnosed with myocardial infarction, diagnosed with left ventricular hypertrophy, or a normal ECG. RESULTS: DL achieved the highest accuracy in this study for detecting V1 and V2 electrode misplacement, with an accuracy of 93.0% (95% CI 91.46-94.53) for misplacement in the second intercostal space. The performance of DL in the second intercostal space was benchmarked with physicians (n=11 and age 47.3 years, SD 15.5) who were experienced in reading ECGs (mean number of ECGs read in the past year 436.54, SD 397.9). Physicians were poor at recognizing chest electrode misplacement on the ECG and achieved a mean accuracy of 60% (95% CI 56.09-63.90), which was significantly poorer than that of DL (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: DL provides the best performance for detecting chest electrode misplacement when compared with the ability of experienced physicians. DL and ML could be used to help flag ECGs that have been incorrectly recorded and flag that the data may be flawed, which could reduce the number of erroneous diagnoses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".