Generative adversarial networks in electrocardiogram synthesis: Recent developments and challenges
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Training deep neural network classifiers for electrocardiograms (ECGs) requires sufficient data. However, imbalanced datasets pose a major problem for the training process and hence data augmentation is commonly performed. Generative adversarial networks (GANs) can create synthetic ECG data to augment such imbalanced datasets. This review aims at identifying the present literature concerning synthetic ECG signal generation using GANs to provide a comprehensive overview of architectures, quality evaluation metrics, and classification performances. Thirty publications from the years 2019 to 2022 were selected from three separate databases. Nine publications used a quality evaluation metric neglecting classification, eleven performed a classification but omitted a quality evaluation metric, and ten publications performed both. Twenty different quality evaluation metrics were observed. Overall, the classification performance of databases augmented with synthetically created ECG signals increased by 7 % to 98 % in accuracy and 6 % to 97 % in sensitivity. In conclusion, synthetic ECG signal generation using GANs represents a promising tool for data augmentation of imbalanced datasets. Consistent quality evaluation of generated signals remains challenging. Hence, future work should focus on the establishment of a gold standard for quality evaluation metrics for GANs.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it