Why the study?
There is no consensus on best practices for ECG pre-processing in machine learning classification of heart conditions despite state-of-the-art algorithms achieving remarkable results.
Does ECG pre-processing (down-sampling, normalization, band-pass filtering) improve the performance of deep learning multi-label classifiers?
Does ECG pre-processing (down-sampling, normalization, band-pass filtering) improve the performance of deep learning multi-label classifiers?
For deep learning-based multi-label ECG classification, down-sampling signals to 50Hz reliably reduces computational resource requirements without compromising accuracy, while standard min-max normalization and band-pass filtering generally do not improve performance.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kalmady et al. (2023) studied Cardiovascular conditions (ECG abnormalities) (n=38,124). ECG down-sampling (e.g., to 50Hz), min-max normalization, and band-pass filtering vs. Standard 500Hz sampling rate, raw ECGs, or no band-pass filtering was evaluated on Classification performance (Macro-average F1 score on the test set) (p=0.365).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: