MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417345758 · doi:10.1038/s41746-025-02199-5

ECG sonification methods for robust and generalizable clinical decision support

2025· article· en· W4417345758 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Elgendi, Azza Elkhalifa, Maha Alshehhi, Elyazia Almarri, Kinda Khalaf, Ahsan H. Khandoker, Rabab Ward

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Digital Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersKhalifa University of Science, Technology and Research
KeywordsSonificationGeneralizability theoryPreprocessorAuditory displayModality (human–computer interaction)PerceptionWaveformVisualizationAuditory perception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrocardiography (ECG) sonification has emerged as a complementary modality to visual waveform interpretation, enabling diagnostic cues to be conveyed through sound in real time. This review synthesizes evidence from the past decade to establish the current methodological landscape and gaps in ECG sonification research. A structured search identified eight peer-reviewed studies (2015-2025) that applied auditory transformation of ECG signals for diagnosis, monitoring, or therapeutic guidance. We analyzed signal acquisition methods, preprocessing pipelines, mapping strategies (including parameter mapping and amplitude/frequency modulation, with optional machine-learning decoding), evaluation endpoints, and common limitations. Reported benefits included enhanced perceptual cue detection, alternative feedback channels, and support for cognitive load reduction. However, generalizability was limited by small sample sizes, inconsistent reporting of audio design parameters, and minimal clinical validation. We propose minimum reporting standards and a staged evaluation pathway to enable robust, reproducible, and clinically translatable ECG sonification systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.119
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.333
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1190.333
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.398 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Digital MedicineSame topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207