4.5 Article

Classification of 12-lead ECGs: the PhysioNet/Computing in Cardiology Challenge 2020

期刊

PHYSIOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT
卷 41, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1361-6579/abc960

关键词

electrocardiogram; signal processing; generalizability; reproducibility; competition; PhysioNet

资金

  1. National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)
  2. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) under NIH [2R01GM104987-09, R01EB030362]
  3. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health [UL1TR002378]
  4. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
  5. MathWorks
  6. AliveCor, Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Vast 12-lead ECGs repositories provide opportunities to develop new machine learning approaches for creating accurate and automatic diagnostic systems for cardiac abnormalities. However, most 12-lead ECG classification studies are trained, tested, or developed in single, small, or relatively homogeneous datasets. In addition, most algorithms focus on identifying small numbers of cardiac arrhythmias that do not represent the complexity and difficulty of ECG interpretation. This work addresses these issues by providing a standard, multi-institutional database and a novel scoring metric through a public competition: the PhysioNet/Computing in Cardiology Challenge 2020. Approach: A total of 66 361 12-lead ECG recordings were sourced from six hospital systems from four countries across three continents; 43 101 recordings were posted publicly with a focus on 27 diagnoses. For the first time in a public competition, we required teams to publish open-source code for both training and testing their algorithms, ensuring full scientific reproducibility. Main results: A total of 217 teams submitted 1395 algorithms during the Challenge, representing a diversity of approaches for identifying cardiac abnormalities from both academia and industry. As with previous Challenges, high-performing algorithms exhibited significant drops (less than or similar to

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据