Cited by 52Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)ECG Monitoring and AnalysisMachine Learning in Healthcare

Explaining Deep Learning for ECG Analysis: Building Blocks for Auditing and Knowledge Discovery

Open access
Wagner, Patrick, Mehari, Temesgen, Haverkamp, Wilhelm, Strodthoff, Nils·2024·Computers in Biology and Medicine

Abstract

Deep neural networks have become increasingly popular for analyzing ECG data because of their ability to accurately identify cardiac conditions and hidden clinical factors. However, the lack of transparency due to the black box nature of these models is a common concern. To address this issue, explainable AI (XAI) methods can be employed. In this study, we present a comprehensive analysis of post-hoc XAI methods, investigating the glocal (aggregated local attributions over multiple samples) and global (concept based XAI) perspectives. We have established a set of sanity checks to identify saliency as the most sensible attribution method. We provide a dataset-wide analysis across entire patient subgroups, which goes beyond anecdotal evidence, to establish the first quantitative evidence for the alignment of model behavior with cardiologists' decision rules. Furthermore, we demonstrate how these XAI techniques can be utilized for knowledge discovery, such as identifying subtypes of myocardial infarction. We believe that these proposed methods can serve as building blocks for a complementary assessment of the internal validity during a certification process, as well as for knowledge discovery in the field of ECG analysis.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.108525

Cites

68 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Other work has used broader explainability frameworks to compare model attention with known cardiologist decision rules and to investigate whether deep learning models use clinically plausible ECG features.

    “Other work has used broader explainability frameworks to compare model attention with known cardiologist decision rules and to investigate whether deep learning models use clinically plausible ECG features [49].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [29][29] L. Lu, T. Zhu, A. H. Ribeiro, L. Clifton, E. Zhao, J. Zhou, A. L. P. Ribeiro, Y.-T. Zhang, and D. A. Clifton, 'Decoding 2.3 million ecgs: Interpretable deep learning for advancing cardiovascular diagnosis and mortality risk stratification,' European Heart Journal-Digital Health , p. ztae014, 2024. -
  2. [40][40] A. L. Goldberger, L. A. N. Amaral, L. Glass, J. M. Hausdorff, P. C. Ivanov, R. G. Mark, J. E. Mietus, G. B. Moody, C.-K. Peng, and H. E. Stanley, 'PhysioBank, PhysioToolkit, and PhysioNet,' Circulation , vol. 101, no. 23, pp. e215-e220, 2000. -
  3. [65][65] M. H. Nikoo, A. Aslani, and M. V. Jorat, 'Lbbb: state-ofthe-art criteria,' International Cardiovascular Research Journal , 2013. -
  4. [72][72] T. Lewis, Heart , ch. 5, pp. 367-402. Shaw, 1914. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wagner, P., Mehari, T., Haverkamp, W., & Strodthoff, N.
Affiliations
  • Fraunhofer Institute for Telecommunications, Heinrich Hertz Institute (DE)
  • Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (DE)
  • Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
  • Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Strodthoff, Nils
Venue
Computers in Biology and Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-06
Volume
176
Pages
108525
ISSN
0010-4825 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4396670015
Cited by
48
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 1
FWCI
6.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computers in Biology and Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carl von Ossiezky University of Oldenburg (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Fraunhofer-Publica (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Senat von Berlin
  • European Commission
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › ECG Monitoring and Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
explainable AI, ECG signal analysis, deep neural network, saliency maps, global explanations, model interpretability, knowledge discovery, model auditing, model certification
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Electrocardiography, Humans, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Neural Networks, Computer, Knowledge Discovery

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review