Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 292

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Signal quality indices and data fusion for determining clinical acceptability of electrocardiograms

Open access
Clifford, G D, Behar, J, Li, Q, Rezek, I·2012·Physiological Measurement

Abstract

A completely automated algorithm to detect poor-quality electrocardiograms (ECGs) is described. The algorithm is based on both novel and previously published signal quality metrics, originally designed for intensive care monitoring. The algorithms have been adapted for use on short (5-10 s) single- and multi-lead ECGs. The metrics quantify spectral energy distribution, higher order moments and inter-channel and inter-algorithm agreement. Seven metrics were calculated for each channel (84 features in all) and presented to either a multi-layer perceptron artificial neural network or a support vector machine (SVM) for training on a multiple-annotator labelled and adjudicated training dataset. A single-lead version of the algorithm was also developed in a similar manner. Data were drawn from the PhysioNet Challenge 2011 dataset where binary labels were available, on 1500 12-lead ECGs indicating whether the entire recording was acceptable or unacceptable for clinical interpretation. We re-annotated all the leads in both the training set (1000 labelled ECGs) and test dataset (500 12-lead ECGs where labels were not publicly available) using two independent annotators, and a third for adjudication of differences. We found that low-quality data accounted for only 16% of the ECG leads. To balance the classes (between high and low quality), we created extra noisy data samples by adding noise from PhysioNet's noise stress test database to some of the clean 12-lead ECGs. No data were shared between training and test sets. A classification accuracy of 98% on the training data and 97% on the test data were achieved. Upon inspection, incorrectly classified data were found to be borderline cases which could be classified either way. If these cases were more consistently labelled, we expect our approach to achieve an accuracy closer to 100%.

Overview

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 · 10.1088/0967-3334/33/9/1419

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 292

Metadata

Authors
Clifford, G. D., Behar, J., Li, Q., & Rezek, I.
Venue
Physiological Measurement
Published
2012-08-17
Volume
33
Issue
9
Pages
1419-1433
ISSN
  • 0967-3334 (ISSN-L)
  • 1361-6579
OpenAlex
W2122930900
Cited by
292
References
4
FWCI
7.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Signal quality indices and data fusion for determining clinical acceptability of electrocardiograms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1088/0967-3334/33/9/1419
The paper
Clifford, G. D., Behar, J., Li, Q., & Rezek, I. (2012). Signal quality indices and data fusion for determining clinical acceptability of electrocardiograms. Physiological Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1088/0967-3334/33/9/1419

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.