Key result
PAD-PQRST algorithm outperforms standard ECG delineation methods, achieving up to ~99% QRS detection accuracy.
Why the study?
Accurate delineation of the PQRST complex in ECG signals remains challenging due to waveform variability, low amplitude, and polarity inversions.
The PAD-PQRST algorithm provides a computationally efficient, model-free, and polarity-adaptive framework that accurately detects PQRST waveform features across diverse ECG datasets without requiring prior predictive model training.
Accurate delineation of PQRST complex is essential for clinical ECG analysis, but remains challenging due to waveform variability, low amplitude, and polarity inversions. This work presents PAD-PQRST, a model-free Polarity-Adaptive Delineation method for PQRST complex. This approach leverages search windows based on established cardiac physiology. The Q and S waves are identified by locating the corresponding extrema relative to the R-peak polarity. Meanwhile, the P and T waves are determined by finding the extrema with the maximal absolute deviation from local mean. Because this design inherently accommodates waves of any polarity, it eliminates the need for a predictive model. This research uses the Manikandan2012 algorithm for R-peak detection due to its robustness. Validation on QTDB and LUDB yields F1-scores from 98.5% to 99.8%for QRS components, 90.97% to 94.57% for P-waves, and 79%to 91.41% for T-waves, surpassing established wavelet-based and graph-based methods. The combination of physiologically informed search windows and polarity-adaptive detection delivers a simple yet powerful delineation framework suitable for diverse clinical datasets.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Luangsodsai et al. (2026) studied ECG Signals (n=367). PAD-PQRST algorithm vs. Wavelet-based and graph-based methods (Martinez2004, Emrich2024, Neurokit2 CWT) was evaluated on F1-score for QRS, P, and T wave detection. The PAD-PQRST algorithm achieved F1-scores from 98.5% to 99.8% for QRS components, 90.97% to 94.57% for P-waves, and 79% to 91.41% for T-waves, surpassing established delineation methods.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: