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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines
Chang, C.-C., & Lin, C.-J. (2011) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/1961189.1961199 · Cited by 40,918
Goldberger, A. L., Amaral, L. A. N., Glass, L., Hausdorff, J. M., Ivanov, P. C., Mark, R. G., Mietus, J. E., Moody, G. B., Peng, C.-K., & Stanley, H. E. (2000) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.101.23.e215 · Cited by 14,809
Tamrat, T., & Kachnowski, S. (2012) · Maternal and Child Health Journal · doi:10.1007/s10995-011-0836-3 · Cited by 312
An Agenda For Action On Global E-Health
Gerber, T., Olazabal, V., Brown, K., & Pablos-Mendez, A. (2010) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0934 · Cited by 92
Cited by
Sano, A., Taylor, S., McHill, A. W., Phillips, A. J., Barger, L. K., Klerman, E., & Picard, R. (2018) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.9410 · Cited by 333
“To address these issues, various techniques have been applied, such as data cleaning before data analysis [31]: data quality evaluation [32], detecting faulty data, noise reduction [33], and interpolating faulty or missing values [34,35].”
MethodOptimal Signal Quality Index for Photoplethysmogram Signals
Elgendi, M. (2016) · Bioengineering · doi:10.3390/bioengineering3040021 · Cited by 320
A Review of Signal Processing Techniques for Electrocardiogram Signal Quality Assessment
Satija, U., Ramkumar, B., & Manikandan, M. S. (2018) · IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/rbme.2018.2810957 · Cited by 295
Reinertsen, E., & Clifford, G. D. (2018) · Physiological Measurement · doi:10.1088/1361-6579/aabf64 · Cited by 136
Self-citationSatija, U., Ramkumar, B., & Manikandan, M. S. (2019) · IEEE Sensors Journal · doi:10.1109/jsen.2018.2877055 · Cited by 102
Metadata
- Authors
- Clifford, G. D., Behar, J., Li, Q., & Rezek, I.
- Venue
- Physiological Measurement
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- 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.