Analysis of Augmentations for Contrastive ECG Representation Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper systematically investigates the effectiveness of various augmentations for contrastive self-supervised learning of electrocardiogram (ECG) signals and identifies the best parameters. The baseline of our proposed self-supervised framework consists of two main parts: the contrastive learning and the downstream task. In the first stage, we train an encoder using a number of augmentations to extract generalizable ECG signal representations. We then freeze the encoder and finetune a few linear layers with different amounts of labelled data for downstream arrhythmia detection. We then experiment with various augmentations techniques and explore a range of parameters. Our experiments are done on PTB-XL, a large and publicly available 12-lead ECG dataset. The results show that applying augmentations in a specific range of complexities works better for self-supervised contrastive learning. For instance, when adding Gaussian noise, a sigma in the range of 0.1 to 0.2 achieves better results, while poor training occurs when the added noise is too small or too large (outside of the specified range). A similar trend is observed with other augmentations, demonstrating the importance of selecting the optimum level of difficulty for the added augmentations, as augmentations that are too simple will not result in effective training, while augmentations that are too difficult will also prevent the model from effective learning of generalized representations. Our work can influence future research on self-supervised contrastive learning on biosignals and aid in selecting optimum parameters for different augmentations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".