Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 233

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Classification of Normal/Abnormal Heart Sound Recordings: the PhysioNet/Computing in Cardiology Challenge 2016

Open access
Clifford, Gari, Liu, Chengyu, Springer, David, Moody, Benjamin, Li, Qiao, Abad, Ricardo, Millet, Jose, Silva, Ikaro, Johnson, Alistair, Mark, Roger·2016·2016 Computing in Cardiology Conference (CinC)

Abstract

In the past few decades heart sound signals (i.e., phonocardiograms or PCGs) have been widely studied.Automated heart sound segmentation and classification techniques have the potential to screen for pathologies in a variety of clinical applications.However, comparative analyses of algorithms in the literature have been hindered by the lack of a large and open database of heart sound recordings.The PhysioNet/Computing in Cardiology (CinC) Challenge 2016 addresses this issue by assembling the largest public heart sound database, aggregated from eight sources obtained by seven independent research groups around the world.The database includes 4,430 recordings taken from 1,072 subjects, totalling 233,512 heart sounds collected from both healthy subjects and patients with a variety of conditions such as heart valve disease and coronary artery disease.These recordings were collected using heterogeneous equipment in both clinical and nonclinical (such as in-home visits).The length of recording varied from several seconds to several minutes.Additional data provided include subject demographics (age and gender), recording information (number per patient, body location, and length of recording), synchronously recorded signals (such as ECG), sampling frequency and sensor type used.Participants were asked to classify recordings as normal, abnormal, or not possible to evaluate (noisy/uncertain).The overall score for an entry was based on a weighted sensitivity and specificity score with respect to manual expert annotations.A brief description of a baseline classification method is provided, including a description of open source code, which has been provided in association with the Challenge.The open source code provided a score of 0.71 (Se=0.65 Sp=0.76).During the official phase of the competition, a total of 48 teams submitted 348 open source entries, with a highest score of 0.86 (Se=0.94Sp=0.78).

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 · 10.22489/cinc.2016.179-154

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.

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

Cited by

See all 233

Metadata

Authors
Clifford, G., Liu, C., Springer, D., Moody, B., Li, Q., Abad, R., Millet, J., Silva, I., Johnson, A., & Mark, R.
Venue
2016 Computing in Cardiology Conference (CinC)
Published
2016-09-14
Volume
43
ISSN
2325-887X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2592046076
Cited by
233
References
0
FWCI
78.53
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Classification of Normal/Abnormal Heart Sound Recordings: the PhysioNet/Computing in Cardiology Challenge 2016. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.22489/cinc.2016.179-154
The paper
Clifford, G., Liu, C., Springer, D., Moody, B., Li, Q., Abad, R., Millet, J., Silva, I., Johnson, A., & Mark, R. (2016). Classification of Normal/Abnormal Heart Sound Recordings: the PhysioNet/Computing in Cardiology Challenge 2016. 2016 Computing in Cardiology Conference (CinC). https://doi.org/10.22489/cinc.2016.179-154

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.