Exploring Best Practices for ECG Pre-Processing in Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work we search for best practices in pre-processing of Electrocardiogram (ECG) signals in order to train better classifiers for the diagnosis of heart conditions. State of the art machine learning algorithms have achieved remarkable results in classification of some heart conditions using ECG data, yet there appears to be no consensus on pre-processing best practices. Is this lack of consensus due to different conditions and architectures requiring different processing steps for optimal performance? Is it possible that state of the art deep-learning models have rendered pre-processing unnecessary? In this work we apply down-sampling, normalization, and filtering functions to 3 different multi-label ECG datasets and measure their effects on 3 different high-performing time-series classifiers. We find that sampling rates as low as 50Hz can yield comparable results to the commonly used 500Hz. This is significant as smaller sampling rates will result in smaller datasets and models, which require less time and resources to train. Additionally, despite their common usage, we found min-max normalization to be slightly detrimental overall, and band-passing to make no measurable difference. We found the blind approach to pre-processing of ECGs for multi-label classification to be ineffective, with the exception of sample rate reduction which reliably reduces computational resources, but does not increase accuracy.
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 | 0.016 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".