Timing and Context Features in Machine Learning Classification of Inter-Patient ECG Heartbeats on the MIT-BIH Benchmark
Alforja, E. V.; Aban, J. C.
Show abstract
Explicit timing and context features may complement short electrocardiogram waveforms, but aggregate gains on imbalanced benchmarks can conceal errors in individual classes. We therefore compared Logistic Regression, Random Forest, XGBoost, and a one-dimensional convolutional neural network (CNN) in four cumulative input stages. Stage S1 used a 255-sample beat waveform alone, and stages S2 to S4 added 6, 13, and 21 engineered features. Using the inter-patient division of the MIT-BIH Arrhythmia Database, with 50,992 development and 49,686 evaluation beats in four classes, we estimated 95% intervals with a paired bootstrap over the 22 evaluation recordings. Adding six RR interval features increased macro F1 by 0.025 to 0.093, with intervals excluding zero for every model family. Further context helped Random Forest and XGBoost, whereas later CNN gains fell within resampling uncertainty. At the final stage, XGBoost and CNN reached macro F1 of 0.580 and 0.574, and the interval for their difference included zero. Despite opposite operating points, their precision for fusion beats was similar at matched recall, suggesting that neither separated fusion beats better. The most accurate pipeline, Random Forest at S2 with 94.45% accuracy, detected only 1.4% of supraventricular beats, and development and evaluation favored the same stage for only one family. The results for the minority classes were based on single recordings. Record 213 supplied 203 of the 207 correct CNN fusion detections, and elsewhere both final models detected at most 4 of 26 fusion beats. Record 232 contains 75% of the evaluation supraventricular beats, and nearly all were missed. Excluding this record nearly doubled XGBoost supraventricular F1, from 0.199 to 0.383. These findings are limited to retrospective analysis with annotated beat positions and a single training seed.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Simple Models Versus Deep Learning in Detecting Low Ejection Fraction From The Electrocardiogram 96%
- Multimodal deep learning enhances diagnostic precision in left ventricular hypertrophy 95%
- Using ECG Machine Learning for Detection of Cardiovascular Disease in African American Men and Women: the Jackson Heart Study 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Biometric Contrastive Learning for Data-Efficient Deep Learning from Electrocardiographic Images 96%
- A Comparative Analysis of Privacy-Preserving Large Language Models For Automated Echocardiography Report Analysis 92%
- ENRICHing Medical Imaging Training Sets Enables More Efficient Machine Learning 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Age Prediction From 12-lead Electrocardiograms Using Deep Learning: A Comparison of Four Models on a Contemporary, Freely Available Dataset 94%
- Classification of 12-lead ECGs: the PhysioNet/Computing in Cardiology Challenge 2020 94%
- High-Fidelity Measurement of Pulse Arrival Time in Critically Ill Children Using Standard Bedside Monitoring Equipment 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- T vector velocity: A new ECG biomarker for identifying drug effects on cardiac ventricular repolarization 93%
- Rett syndrome severity estimation with the BioStamp nPoint using interactions between heart rate variability and body movement 93%
- Ventricular anatomical complexity and gender differences impact predictions from computational models 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Explaining Deep Neural Networks for Knowledge Discovery in Electrocardiogram Analysis 95%
- DeepFake electrocardiograms: the beginning of the end for privacy issues in medicine 92%
- Advancing Cardiovascular Disease Diagnosis: A Robust ML Ecosystem Integrating Early Detection, Responsible AI Framework, and Causal Inference 91%
"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.