Pith. sign in

REVIEW

ECG Feature Importance Rankings: Cardiologists vs. Algorithms

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2304.02577 v1 pith:IPLWGFVJ submitted 2023-04-05 physics.med-ph cs.LGeess.SP

ECG Feature Importance Rankings: Cardiologists vs. Algorithms

classification physics.med-ph cs.LGeess.SP
keywords methodsimportancefeaturefeaturessomecardiologistsgroundperformed
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Feature importance methods promise to provide a ranking of features according to importance for a given classification task. A wide range of methods exist but their rankings often disagree and they are inherently difficult to evaluate due to a lack of ground truth beyond synthetic datasets. In this work, we put feature importance methods to the test on real-world data in the domain of cardiology, where we try to distinguish three specific pathologies from healthy subjects based on ECG features comparing to features used in cardiologists' decision rules as ground truth. Some methods generally performed well and others performed poorly, while some methods did well on some but not all of the problems considered.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.