Back

MultiECGNet: A novel deep learning-based multi-format ensemble method for image-based electrocardiographic diagnosis of atrial fibrillation

Phan, J.; Parker, G.; Lovell, N.; Subbiah, R. N.; Vandenberg, J. I.; Hill, A. P.; Argha, A.

2025-06-23 cardiovascular medicine
10.1101/2025.06.21.25330061 medRxiv
Show abstract

AimTo evaluate the performance of an ensemble classifier, MultiECGNet, using multi-format electrocardiographic (ECG) images for the diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF), and to compare its performance with a signal-based deep learning model. MethodsAn ensemble of ECG classifiers was developed using four models derived by truncating the pre-trained EfficientNet B3 model at different feature extraction layers. Transfer learning was employed to train the ensemble on the publicly available PTB-XL dataset for AF detection. External validation was performed using the Chinese Physiological Society Signal Challenge 2018 dataset. ECG samples were converted into two image formats (2x6 and 4x3), and performance was evaluated across same-format, cross-format, and mixed-format classification tasks. ResultsThe ensemble classifier detected AF in the external validation dataset with an accuracy of 0.95 and F1 score of 0.87, which was comparable to a signal-based model (F1-score: 0.87 vs 0.83) and outperformed a single EfficientNet-B3 model (F1-score: 0.87 vs 0.71). Training on one ECG format and testing on a different format resulted in reduced performance (F1 score: 0.66-0.71). However, training on a dataset containing a balanced mix of both formats improved performance compared to same-format training alone (F1-score: 0.86 vs 0.87). ConclusionThe proposed image-based ensemble classifier demonstrated comparable performance to a strong signal-based model for AF detection. While cross-format generalization posed a challenge, incorporating multiple ECG formats during training mitigated this limitation and improved model robustness.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.