ECG Latent Feature Extraction with Autoencoders for Downstream Prediction Tasks

Amit Noheria; Christopher Harvey; Sumaiya Shomaji; Zijun Yao

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 15 references

ECG Latent Feature Extraction with Autoencoders for Downstream Prediction Tasks

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A 30-number autoencoder code combined with ECG summary statistics predicts reduced left ventricular ejection fraction with AUROC 0.901, nearly matching a full-signal CNN (0.909) at a fraction of the compute.

desk verdict The LVEF result is worth chasing, but the paper as written has an unaddressed train/test ambiguity that keeps it short of publishable. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.00131 v1 pith:KHLXJR4X submitted 2025-07-31 cs.LG

Christopher Harvey , Sumaiya Shomaji , Zijun Yao , Amit Noheria This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LG

keywords ECGvariationalautoencoderstochasticLVEFpredictiondimensionalityreductiongradientboostinglatentrepresentationheartfailurescreening

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a 30-number encoding of a single representative heartbeat, produced by a stochastic autoencoder and fed to a gradient-boosted tree model together with standard ECG summary statistics, predicts reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≤35%) with an AUROC of 0.901 on a held-out test set. That nearly matches the 0.909 AUROC of a full-signal convolutional network while using far less computation. The same pipeline retains an AUROC of 0.870 with only 10% of the training labels, where the CNN falls to 0.630. If true, this offers a lightweight, data-efficient route to ECG-based heart-failure screening, particularly for small or under-represented datasets.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the variational-autoencoder family with a modified ELBO loss: a weighted reconstruction term splits the 750 ms representative beat into P-wave, QRS, and T-wave segments with per-segment weights (θ_P=20, θ_QRS=10, θ_T=15) so the high-amplitude QRS does not dominate, and a KL term with coefficient β controls latent-space regularization. Three variants alter the β schedule: the SAE sets β=0 (pure stochastic reconstruction), the cyclical β-VAE cycles β from 0 to 5 over 20 epochs, and the annealed β-VAE starts at β=10 and anneals to 0. The encoder maps the 2,250-point 3-lead beat to a 30-dimensional latent vector that is decoded back, and that 30-vector is then used as feature input for LGBM downstream classifiers. The load-bearing identity is that 30 latent variables plus summary statistics can carry enough morphological information to rival a full-signal CNN.

What would settle it

Retrain the autoencoder and recompute the global absolute-max scaling constant using only the 90% training split, then re-run the reduced-LVEF evaluation; if the AUROC drops materially below 0.901, the original result depended on leakage from test-set ECGs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the stochastic autoencoder (SAE), which drops the KL-regularization term and learns a latent distribution purely to minimize reconstruction loss, produces the most clinically useful 30-variable ECG encodings. When these encodings are concatenated with traditional ECG summary features and fed to an LGBM classifier, the model reaches an AUROC of 0.901 for detecting reduced LVEF, close to the 0.909 of a state-of-the-art CNN trained on raw 10-second 12-lead signals. The paper also finds that a reverse-annealed beta-VAE yields the best signal reconstruction, with a mean absolute error of 15.7 ± 3.2 microvolts, within the level of signal noise. The claim is that these compact encodings preserve morphological details that summary statistics miss, and that the combination can substitute for deep learning on raw signals.

Load-bearing premise

The reported AUROCs are only valid if the autoencoder and the global scaling constant are fit exclusively on the 90% training split, so that test-set encodings are truly out-of-sample.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A 30-number ECG code plus standard summary statistics can screen for reduced ejection fraction at nearly CNN-level accuracy (0.901 vs 0.909) with far less computation.
The pipeline keeps an AUROC of 0.870 with only 10% of the training labels, where the CNN falls to 0.630, making it suited to rare conditions and small datasets.
Dropping the KL term (SAE) helps downstream prediction, while reverse annealing from β=10 to 0 gives the best reconstruction (MAE 15.7 µV), showing reconstruction and prediction are separable goals.
The same encodings predict QRS duration, amplitudes, and bundle-branch blocks (e.g., SAE LBBB AUROC 0.9701), indicating the 30 numbers retain general morphological information.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The 0.901 figure combines latent features with summary statistics; an ablation separating latent-only from stats-only would reveal how much the latent code contributes.
The representative-beat design discards beat-to-beat rhythm information; encoding the full 10-second trace, flagged by the paper as future work, would be the direct test of whether the approach extends to arrhythmias.
Because the SAE omits KL regularization and still wins, a smooth latent space appears unnecessary for these discriminative tasks; this could be tested on other ECG endpoints.
A clinic-facing extension would be to replace LGBM with a simpler linear model on the same encodings to see how much of the gain depends on tree nonlinearity.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Chris — quick note on the Harvey et al. ECG autoencoder paper.

The headline result is the kind of thing that could actually matter: a 30-number latent code, with an autoencoder trained once on big unlabeled ECGs and a LGBM on the codes, gets AUROC 0.901 for reduced LVEF, close to a Mayo-style CNN at 0.909, and degrades far less when downstream labels are scarce. If that holds up, it's a practical route for institutions without GPU farms. The paper also does something useful that's easy to underrate: it compares seven dimensionality reduction methods (PCA, AE, SAE, VAE, beta-VAE, two schedules) on a million-plus ECG corpus under one preprocessing pipeline, with reconstruction and multiple downstream tasks. The three 'novel' variants are modest — setting beta to 0, cycling beta 0-5, reversing the annealing — but honestly applied and clearly described.

The soft spot is the one you caught, and it's load-bearing. Section II-A says the dataset was split by patient ID into 90% training and 10% test. Section II-C says the models were trained on ~1.1 million ECGs, which is the full dataset size. If the autoencoder and the global absolute-max scaler saw test-patient ECGs before the encodings were extracted, the test AUROCs aren't out-of-sample and the small-data claim is inflated. The text doesn't explicitly say the unsupervised training was restricted to the training split, and no code/data allow external verification. This is fixable by a clear statement and ideally a re-run with a strictly disjoint autoencoder training set.

Two smaller issues: the test-set sizes differ between Table 5 (n=30,554) and Table 6 (n=15,987) for the same 'holdout test' without explanation, and there are no confidence intervals anywhere, which matters for an AUROC gap of 0.009. Both are minor relative to the leakage question, but they add up.

My read: this is a solid applied idea with sloppy reporting on the single most important protocol detail. The reader's reject is defensible as a decision, but not because the method is doomed — it's because the paper doesn't yet prove the result. A serious referee should see this with a request to clarify the split, reconcile the test sizes, add CIs, and release code. I'd like to see the revised version. Bring it to reading group if you want a lively discussion about leakage in self-supervised representations.

Referee Report

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes three new variational autoencoder variants (Stochastic Autoencoder SAE, Annealed beta-VAE, and Cyclical beta-VAE) for learning compact 30-dimensional ECG latent representations from a large clinical dataset (1,065,368 ECGs). The authors evaluate reconstruction fidelity (MAE, MSE, DTW) and downstream predictive performance using LGBM classifiers trained on the encodings for QRS measurements, bundle branch blocks, and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The headline claim is that combining SAE encodings with traditional ECG summary features achieves a holdout test AUROC of 0.901 for reduced LVEF, nearly matching a state-of-the-art CNN (0.909) while requiring less computation and degrading less steeply with small training sets.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper offers a practically valuable contribution: a compact, interpretable intermediate representation that lets simple tree-based models approach CNN-level performance on ECG classification with far less data and compute. The study uses a very large clinical ECG dataset, compares multiple autoencoder variants, and evaluates on several clinically relevant tasks, which are strengths. The reconstruction quality of the best model (MAE 15.7 microV) is plausibly at signal-noise level. However, the credibility of the headline numbers depends entirely on a clean patient-level train/test split and consistent evaluation protocols. The manuscript currently contains ambiguities about whether the autoencoder and global scaler saw test data, and the reported test-set sizes for the reduced-LVEF task are internally inconsistent. Without resolving these, the 0.901 AUROC and the small-data robustness claims are not verifiable. The lack of confidence intervals and the post-hoc selection of the 'best' model further make the reported differences hard to interpret.

major comments (5)

[III-D, Tables 5 and 6] The most load-bearing issue is the potential train/test leakage in the unsupervised feature extractor and the scaling step. Section II-A states that ECGs were split by unique patient IDs into training (90%) and test (10%), but Section II-C says 'Models were trained on ~1.1 million ECGs', which is the size of the entire 1,065,368-ECG dataset rather than the 90% training split. If the autoencoder, PCA, or the global absolute-max scaling constant (II-A: 'dividing by the dataset's maximum absolute amplitude') were fit on the full dataset including test patients, then the test-set encodings are not out-of-sample and the downstream AUROC values in Tables 5 and 6, as well as the reconstruction metrics in Table 1, would be inflated. The manuscript must state explicitly that all unsupervised models and the scaler were fitted only on the training split, and ideally provide the exact training-set size for each model.
[III-D] The test-set sizes for the reduced-LVEF prediction task are inconsistent. Table 5 reports a test set of n=30,554, while Table 6 reports a holdout test set of n=15,987 for the same task. The text also mentions 303,265 ECGs paired with echocardiography in total for training and testing combined. These numbers do not reconcile, and the discrepancy is not explained. Because the headline comparison (SAE+LGBM AUROC 0.901 vs. CNN AUROC 0.909) appears in Table 6 but the SAE-only results are in Table 5, the reader cannot tell whether the two tables refer to the same test set. This must be clarified, and all models compared on the same holdout set, with exact sample sizes stated.
[III-D] Table 6 does not specify the input representation for each LGBM row. The text claims that 'Combining SAE encodings with traditional ECG features improved the AUROC to 0.901', but the table simply labels the model as 'LGBM' with no indication of whether the input is SAE encodings only, ECG statistics only, or the combination. Since this is the central quantitative claim of the paper, the table and the accompanying text must be aligned so that the exact feature set used for each AUROC value is unambiguous.
[III] No confidence intervals or statistical significance tests are provided for any of the AUROC, MAE, or R-squared values. Many of the differences that motivate the narrative are small (e.g., SAE AUROC 0.820 vs. VAE 0.819 in Table 5; RBBB AUROC differences of less than 0.002 in Table 4). Without confidence intervals or error bars, it is impossible to assess whether the reported ordering of methods is meaningful or due to noise. At minimum, the headline AUROC values (0.901 and 0.909) and the reconstruction MAE values in Table 1 need uncertainty quantification, ideally via bootstrap or repeated split resampling.
[II-E] The paper selects the 'best' autoencoder variant separately for each downstream task and then builds the headline narrative around SAE without correcting for multiple comparisons or pre-registering the model choice. This is a mild selection effect, but combined with the leakage ambiguity it weakens the claim that SAE is the preferred method for reduced-LVEF prediction. The authors should either report results for all models on the same combined feature set or explicitly acknowledge the post-hoc selection and adjust their conclusions accordingly.

minor comments (7)

[Abstract/II-A] The running header contains the typo 'Compairson' and should be corrected to 'Comparison'.
[II-C] The data description mentions both 500 Hz and 1000 Hz sampling rates: the abstract says '12 leads at 500 Hz', while Section II-A says 'reducing the 1000 Hz 120,000-datapoint 10-sec 12-lead ECG'. Please clarify the native sampling rate and whether the data were resampled to 1000 Hz for the representative-beat extraction.
[II-E] Equation (1) defines z = mu + sigma * epsilon, but the text calls mu and sigma the 'population mean' and 'standard deviation'; these are the encoder outputs for a given input, not population parameters. The notation should be aligned with the standard reparameterization trick notation (e.g., mu_theta(x), sigma_theta(x)).
[II-F] For the SAE, the text says it has a 'stochastic distribution' and beta=0, so no KL term; it is unclear how sigma is trained or whether it collapses. Please clarify the SAE's training objective and whether sigma is a learned parameter or a constant (e.g., a fixed noise level).
[III-A] The CNN baseline is described as 'our implementation of the CNN model architecture from Mayo Clinic' [11], but no architectural details, training hyperparameters, or preprocessing are provided. To make the comparison reproducible, please provide a description or reference to the exact implementation, including how the full 10-sec 12-lead ECG is fed into the network.
[III-A] The paper reports reconstruction metrics in Table 1 for N=1,065,368 (the entire dataset) and in Table 2 for N=97,464, presumably a test subset. It should be stated explicitly whether Table 1 reports training-set reconstructions or test-set reconstructions; if Table 1 includes training data, the claim that the MAE is 'at the level of signal noise' is not an out-of-sample evaluation.
[Conclusion] The conclusion states that '60,000 data points in a full 10-sec 12-lead ECG at 500 Hz can be reduced to 30 latent variables', which is a useful summary, but the paper should also acknowledge the loss of beat-to-beat information more prominently, as it does in the last paragraph of Section IV.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: VAE encodings are unsupervised latent features, and downstream predictions are held-out empirical evaluations.

full rationale

Every load-bearing claim is an empirical comparison rather than a derivation from its own inputs. The VAE variants differ only through loss-function schedules (Section II-E), and the reported MAE/DTW reconstruction values and downstream AUROC values are measured on held-out test sets. The SAE's downstream success is not defined in terms of the target: Section II-E sets beta=0 and removes the KL term, and Sections III-B through III-D train LGBM models on the resulting encodings and evaluate them against held-out labels. No equation equates a reported result to a fitted parameter, and no load-bearing premise depends on a self-citation. The cited external baselines (Kors conversion matrix, Mayo Clinic CNN, cyclical annealing schedule) provide independent context rather than circular support. The manuscript's only serious validity concern is the ambiguous train/test split: Section II-A states ECGs were split by unique patient IDs into training (90%) and test (10%), while Section II-C says models were trained on ~1.1 million ECGs, which could imply the autoencoder or scaling constants saw test ECGs. If so, the test-set AUROC would be inflated. That is a soundness/leakage issue, not a circularity reduction, and the text does not actually confirm that the autoencoder was trained on the full dataset. Therefore the paper has no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on domain assumptions about the representative beat, lead transform, label alignment, and normalization, plus hand-chosen hyperparameters that define the VAE variants. No new physical entities are introduced. The key unverified assumption is whether test-set patients were included in the unsupervised autoencoder training and normalization, which would make the reported results optimistic.

free parameters (5)

Wave-segment loss weights theta_P, theta_QRS, theta_T = 20.0, 10.0, 15.0
Hand-selected in Section II-D; these weights change the reconstruction objective and influence which model reconstructs best.
beta in beta-VAE = 3
Selected in Section II-D to 'enhance a smooth latent space'; no tuning procedure or validation-set search is reported.
Cbeta-VAE cyclical beta range and period = 0 to 5, cycle of 20 epochs
Chosen in Section II-E; a modification of Fu et al.'s 0-to-1 cycling, so the range is an ad hoc choice.
Abeta-VAE reverse annealing beta schedule = 10 to 0 over 50 epochs
Chosen in Section II-E; the authors report it gives the best reconstruction, suggesting selection based on observed performance.
LGBM hyperparameters = max_depth=15, colsample_bytree=0.9, extra_trees=True, top_k=100, learning_rate=0.1, num_estimators=1,000,000 early…
Listed in Section II-F; only 8 parameters altered from defaults, but no evidence of cross-validation or separate validation set.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption A single 750 ms representative beat centered 100 ms after QRS onset preserves the diagnostic information needed for downstream tasks like LVEF prediction.
Stated in Section II-A; the paper acknowledges beat-to-beat and rhythm information is lost, yet the downstream claim (LVEF) assumes the representative beat is sufficient.
domain assumption Kors transformation from 8 independent leads to 3 orthogonal leads retains all clinically relevant morphology.
Section II-A uses Kors's matrix [4]; the paper does not compare against the original lead configuration.
domain assumption An echocardiogram within 45 days of the ECG reflects the same cardiac state, providing a valid label for reduced LVEF.
Section III-D defines the label window; treatment or progression within 45 days could mislabel ECGs.
domain assumption Global absolute-max scaling can be computed without using test-set statistics.
Section II-A says division is by 'the dataset's maximum absolute amplitude'; if computed over all data including the test split, normalization leaks test statistics into the trained models.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ECG Latent Feature Extraction with Autoencoders for Downstream Prediction Tasks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KHLXJR4X

@misc{pith2026250800131,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ECG Latent Feature Extraction with Autoencoders for Downstream Prediction Tasks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KHLXJR4X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.00131}
}

read the original abstract

The electrocardiogram (ECG) is an inexpensive and widely available tool for cardiac assessment. Despite its standardized format and small file size, the high complexity and inter-individual variability of ECG signals (typically a 60,000-size vector with 12 leads at 500 Hz) make it challenging to use in deep learning models, especially when only small training datasets are available. This study addresses these challenges by exploring feature generation methods from representative beat ECGs, focusing on Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Autoencoders to reduce data complexity. We introduce three novel Variational Autoencoder (VAE) variants-Stochastic Autoencoder (SAE), Annealed beta-VAE (A beta-VAE), and Cyclical beta VAE (C beta-VAE)-and compare their effectiveness in maintaining signal fidelity and enhancing downstream prediction tasks using a Light Gradient Boost Machine (LGBM). The A beta-VAE achieved superior signal reconstruction, reducing the mean absolute error (MAE) to 15.7+/-3.2 muV, which is at the level of signal noise. Moreover, the SAE encodings, when combined with traditional ECG summary features, improved the prediction of reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF), achieving an holdout test set area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.901 with a LGBM classifier. This performance nearly matches the 0.909 AUROC of state-of-the-art CNN model but requires significantly less computational resources. Further, the ECG feature extraction-LGBM pipeline avoids overfitting and retains predictive performance when trained with less data. Our findings demonstrate that these VAE encodings are not only effective in simplifying ECG data but also provide a practical solution for applying deep learning in contexts with limited-scale labeled training data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.00131 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Overview of VAE architecture promote feature disentanglement [8]. A smooth latent space is useful if the VAE is used for augmented data generation. A β term is used to control the balance between reconstruction quality and latent space regularization. Each 250-ms section of the signal (P wave, QRS complex, and T wave) has unique weights that are selected to diminish the effects of differences in their amplitudes. T… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Four examples (Normal, LBBB, RBBB and Biventricular Paced) of signal reconstruction (orange) with original signal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[1]

A survey on ecg analysis,

S. K. Berkaya, A. K. Uysal, E. S. Gunal, S. Ergin, S. Gunal, and M. B. Gulmezoglu, “A survey on ecg analysis,” Biomedical Signal Processing and Control , vol. 43, pp. 216–235, 2018

work page 2018
[2]

Classification of ecg signal using fft based improved alexnet classifier,

A. Kumar M and A. Chakrapani, “Classification of ecg signal using fft based improved alexnet classifier,” PLOS one, vol. 17, no. 9, p. e0274225, 2022

work page 2022
[3]

A novel dimensionality reduction approach for ecg signal via convolutional denoising autoencoder with lstm,

E. Dasan and I. Panneerselvam, “A novel dimensionality reduction approach for ecg signal via convolutional denoising autoencoder with lstm,” Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, vol. 63, p. 102225, 2021. (available at: https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1746809420303554 )

work page 2021
[4]

Reconstruction of the frank vectorcardiogram from standard electrocardiographic leads: diagnostic comparison of different methods,

J. Kors, G. Van Herpen, A. Sittig, and J. Van Bemmel, “Reconstruction of the frank vectorcardiogram from standard electrocardiographic leads: diagnostic comparison of different methods,” European heart journal , vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 1083– 1092, 1990

work page 1990
[5]

Serving the enterprise and be- yond with informatics for integrating biology and the bedside (i2b2),

S. N. Murphy, G. Weber, M. Mendis, V . Gainer, H. C. Chueh, S. Churchill, and I. Kohane, “Serving the enterprise and be- yond with informatics for integrating biology and the bedside (i2b2),” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Associa- tion, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 124–130, 2010

work page 2010
[6]

Expressing observations from electronic medical record flowsheets in an i2b2-based clinical data repository to support research and quality improvement,

L. R. Waitman, J. J. Warren, E. L. Manos, and D. W. Con- nolly, “Expressing observations from electronic medical record flowsheets in an i2b2-based clinical data repository to support research and quality improvement,” AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, 2011, pp. 1454–1463

work page 2011
[7]

Auto-encoding variational bayes,

D. P. Kingma and M. Welling, “Auto-encoding variational bayes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114 , 2013

arXiv 2013
[8]

On information and sufficiency,

S. Kullback and R. A. Leibler, “On information and sufficiency,” The annals of mathematical statistics , vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 79–86, 1951

1951

Show all 15 references

[9]

beta- V AE: Learning basic visual concepts with a constrained variational framework,

I. Higgins, L. Matthey, A. Pal, C. Burgess, X. Glorot, M. Botvinick, S. Mohamed, and A. Lerchner, “beta- V AE: Learning basic visual concepts with a constrained variational framework,” International Conference on Learning Representations, 2017. (available at: https://openrevie...

2017
[10]

Cyclical annealing schedule: A simple approach to mitigating kl vanishing,

H. Fu, C. Li, X. Liu, J. Gao, A. Celikyilmaz, and L. Carin, “Cyclical annealing schedule: A simple approach to mitigating kl vanishing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.10145 , 2019

1903 arXiv
[11]

Screening for cardiac contractile dysfunction using an artificial intelligence–enabled electrocardiogram,

Z. I. Attia, S. Kapa, F. Lopez-Jimenez, P. M. McKie, D. J. Ladewig, G. Satam, P. A. Pellikka, M. Enriquez-Sarano, P. A. Noseworthy, T. M. Munger et al. , “Screening for cardiac contractile dysfunction using an artificial intelligence–enabled electrocardiogram,” Nature medicine...

2019
[12]

Age and sex estimation using artificial intelligence from standard 12-lead ecgs,

Z. I. Attia, P. A. Friedman, P. A. Noseworthy, F. Lopez-Jimenez, D. J. Ladewig, G. Satam, P. A. Pellikka, T. M. Munger, S. J. Asirvatham, C. G. Scott et al. , “Age and sex estimation using artificial intelligence from standard 12-lead ecgs,” Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electro...

2019
[13]

Artificial intelligence algorithm for screening heart failure with reduced ejection fraction using electrocardiography,

J. Cho, B. Lee, J.-M. Kwon, Y . Lee, H. Park, B.-H. Oh, K.-H. Jeon, J. Park, and K.-H. Kim, “Artificial intelligence algorithm for screening heart failure with reduced ejection fraction using electrocardiography,” ASAIO Journal , vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 314– 321, 2021

2021
[14]

Lightgbm: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree,

G. Ke, Q. Meng, T. Finley, T. Wang, W. Chen, W. Ma, Q. Ye, and T.-Y . Liu, “Lightgbm: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree,” Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , ser. NIPS’17. Red Hook, NY , USA: Curran Assoc...

2017
[15]

Surawicz, R

B. Surawicz, R. Childers, B. J. Deal, L. S. Gettes, J. J. Bailey, A. Gorgels, E. W. Hancock, M. Josephson, P. Kligfield, J. A. Kors, P. Macfarlane, J. W. Mason, D. M. Mirvis, P. Okin, O. Pahlm, P. M. Rautaharju, G. van Herpen, G. S. Wagner, H. Wellens, American Heart Associati...

2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A survey on ecg analysis,

S. K. Berkaya, A. K. Uysal, E. S. Gunal, S. Ergin, S. Gunal, and M. B. Gulmezoglu, “A survey on ecg analysis,” Biomedical Signal Processing and Control , vol. 43, pp. 216–235, 2018

work page 2018

[2] [2]

Classification of ecg signal using fft based improved alexnet classifier,

A. Kumar M and A. Chakrapani, “Classification of ecg signal using fft based improved alexnet classifier,” PLOS one, vol. 17, no. 9, p. e0274225, 2022

work page 2022

[3] [3]

A novel dimensionality reduction approach for ecg signal via convolutional denoising autoencoder with lstm,

E. Dasan and I. Panneerselvam, “A novel dimensionality reduction approach for ecg signal via convolutional denoising autoencoder with lstm,” Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, vol. 63, p. 102225, 2021. (available at: https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1746809420303554 )

work page 2021

[4] [4]

Reconstruction of the frank vectorcardiogram from standard electrocardiographic leads: diagnostic comparison of different methods,

J. Kors, G. Van Herpen, A. Sittig, and J. Van Bemmel, “Reconstruction of the frank vectorcardiogram from standard electrocardiographic leads: diagnostic comparison of different methods,” European heart journal , vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 1083– 1092, 1990

work page 1990

[5] [5]

Serving the enterprise and be- yond with informatics for integrating biology and the bedside (i2b2),

S. N. Murphy, G. Weber, M. Mendis, V . Gainer, H. C. Chueh, S. Churchill, and I. Kohane, “Serving the enterprise and be- yond with informatics for integrating biology and the bedside (i2b2),” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Associa- tion, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 124–130, 2010

work page 2010

[6] [6]

Expressing observations from electronic medical record flowsheets in an i2b2-based clinical data repository to support research and quality improvement,

L. R. Waitman, J. J. Warren, E. L. Manos, and D. W. Con- nolly, “Expressing observations from electronic medical record flowsheets in an i2b2-based clinical data repository to support research and quality improvement,” AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, 2011, pp. 1454–1463

work page 2011

[7] [7]

Auto-encoding variational bayes,

D. P. Kingma and M. Welling, “Auto-encoding variational bayes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114 , 2013

arXiv 2013

[8] [8]

On information and sufficiency,

S. Kullback and R. A. Leibler, “On information and sufficiency,” The annals of mathematical statistics , vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 79–86, 1951

1951