ArticleHeliyon2024
Diagnosis of atrial fibrillation based on AI-detected anomalies of ECG segments.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Explainable AI in Clinical Decision Support Systems: A Meta-Analysis of Methods, Applications, and Usability Challenges.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Screening for Left Ventricular Hypertrophy Using Artificial Intelligence Algorithms Based on 12 Leads of the Electrocardiogram-Applicable in Clinical Practice?-Critical Literature Review with Meta-Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
- Research on atrial fibrillation diagnosis in electrocardiograms based on CLA-AF model.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Article
- xECGArch: a trustworthy deep learning architecture for interpretable ECG analysis considering short-term and long-term features.Scientific reports · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early detection of atrial fibrillation (AF) is crucial for its effective management and prevention. Various methods for detecting AF using deep learning (DL) based on supervised learning with a large labeled dataset have a remarkable performance. However, supervised learning has several problems, as it is time-consuming for labeling and has a data dependency problem. Moreover, most of the DL methods do not provide any clinical evidence to physicians regarding the analysis of electrocardiography (ECG) for classification or detection of AF. To address these limitations, in this study, we proposed a novel AF diagnosis system using unsupervised learning for anomaly detection with three segments, PreQ, QRS, and PostS, based on the normal ECG. Two independent datasets, PTB-XL and China, were used in three experiments. We used a long short-term memory (LSTM)-based autoencoder to train the segments of the normal ECG. Based on the threshold of anomaly scores using mean squared error (MSE), it distinguished between normal and AF segments. In Experiment A, the best score was that of PreQ, which detected AF with an AUROC score of 0.96. In Experiment B and C for cross validation of each dataset, the best scores were also of PreQ, with AUROC scores of 0.9 and 0.95, respectively. To verify the significance of the anomaly score in distinguishing between AF and normal segments, we utilized an XG-Boosted model after generating anomaly scores in the three segments. The XG-Boosted model achieved an AUROC score of 0.98 and an F1 score of 0.94. AF detection using DL has been controversial among many physicians. However, our study differentiates itself from previous studies in that we can demonstrate evidence that distinguishes AF from normal segments based on the anomaly score.
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.