ReviewMedical & biological engineering & computing2023
Characterization of noise in long-term ECG monitoring with machine learning based on clinical criteria.
Review in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep Neural Networks for Automatic Atrial Fibrillation Detection Using Long-Term Ambulatory Electrocardiography: Retrospective Diagnostic Accuracy Study.JMIR cardio · 2026Article
- Treatment Response Phenotyping Informed by Patient Physiologic Characteristics Could Drive Precision Critical Care Through Augmented Intelligence: A Narrative Review.CHEST critical care · 2026Article
- A web-based system for real-time ECG monitoring using MySQL database and DigiMesh technology: design and implementation.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2025Article
- Validation of a New and Straightforward Algorithm to Evaluate Signal Quality during ECG Monitoring with Wearable Devices Used in a Clinical Setting.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Noise and artifacts affect strongly the quality of the electrocardiogram (ECG) in long-term ECG monitoring (LTM), making some of its parts impractical for diagnosis. The clinical severity of noise defines a qualitative quality score according to the manner clinicians make the interpretation of the ECG, in contrast to assess noise from a quantitative standpoint. So clinical noise refers to a scale of different levels of qualitative severity of noise which aims at elucidating which ECG fragments are valid to achieve diagnosis from a clinical point of view, unlike the traditional approach, which assesses noise in terms of quantitative severity. This work proposes the use of machine learning (ML) techniques to categorize different qualitative noise severity using a database annotated according to a clinical noise taxonomy as gold standard. A comparative study is carried out using five representative ML methods, namely, K neareast neighbors, decision trees, support vector machine, single-layer perceptron, and random forest. The models are fed by signal quality indexes characterizing the waveform in time and frequency domains, as well as from a statistical viewpoint, to distinguish between clinically valid ECG segments from invalid ones. A solid methodology to prevent overfitting to both the dataset and the patient is developed, taking into account balance of classes, patient separation, and patient rotation in the test set. All the proposed learning systems have demonstrated good classification performance, attaining a recall, precision, and F1 score up to 0.78, 0.80, and 0.77, respectively, in the test set by a single-layer perceptron approach. These systems provide a classification solution for assessing the clinical quality of the ECG taken from LTM recordings. Graphical Abstract Clinical Noise Severity Classification based on Machine Learning techniques towards Long-Term ECG Monitoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.