State-of-the-Art Deep Learning Methods on Electrocardiogram Data: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electrocardiogram (ECG) is one of the most common noninvasive diagnostic tools that can provide useful information regarding a patient's health status. Deep learning (DL) is an area of intense exploration that leads the way in most attempts to create powerful diagnostic models based on physiological signals. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide a systematic review of DL methods applied to ECG data for various clinical applications. METHODS: The PubMed search engine was systematically searched by combining "deep learning" and keywords such as "ecg," "ekg," "electrocardiogram," "electrocardiography," and "electrocardiology." Irrelevant articles were excluded from the study after screening titles and abstracts, and the remaining articles were further reviewed. The reasons for article exclusion were manuscripts written in any language other than English, absence of ECG data or DL methods involved in the study, and absence of a quantitative evaluation of the proposed approaches. RESULTS: We identified 230 relevant articles published between January 2020 and December 2021 and grouped them into 6 distinct medical applications, namely, blood pressure estimation, cardiovascular disease diagnosis, ECG analysis, biometric recognition, sleep analysis, and other clinical analyses. We provide a complete account of the state-of-the-art DL strategies per the field of application, as well as major ECG data sources. We also present open research problems, such as the lack of attempts to address the issue of blood pressure variability in training data sets, and point out potential gaps in the design and implementation of DL models. CONCLUSIONS: We expect that this review will provide insights into state-of-the-art DL methods applied to ECG data and point to future directions for research on DL to create robust models that can assist medical experts in clinical decision-making.
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 | 0.007 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".