ArticleScientific reports2025
Analyzing the performance of biomedical time-series segmentation with electrophysiology data.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep learning for time-series segmentation of mechanical ventilator waveforms.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- On the redundancy of denoising in electrocardiogram reconstruction.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Deep Learning for Time-Series Segmentation of Mechanical Ventilator Waveforms.Research square · 2025Article
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
Accurate segmentation of biomedical time-series, such as intracardiac electrograms, is vital for understanding physiological states and supporting clinical interventions. Traditional rule-based and feature engineering approaches often struggle with complex clinical patterns and noise. Recent deep learning advancements offer solutions, showing various benefits and drawbacks in segmentation tasks. This study evaluates five segmentation algorithms, from traditional rule-based methods to advanced deep learning models, using a unique clinical dataset of intracardiac signals from 100 patients. We compared a rule-based method, a support vector machine (SVM), fully convolutional semantic neural network (UNet), region proposal network (Faster R-CNN), and recurrent neural network for electrocardiographic signals (DENS-ECG). Notably, Faster R-CNN has never been applied to 1D signals segmentation before. Each model underwent Bayesian optimization to minimize hyperparameter bias. Results indicated that deep learning models outperformed traditional methods, with UNet achieving the highest segmentation score of 88.9 % (root mean square errors for onset and offset of 8.43 ms and 7.49 ms), closely followed by DENS-ECG at 87.8 %. Faster R-CNN and SVM showed moderate performance, while the rule-based method had the lowest accuracy (77.7 %). UNet and DENS-ECG excelled in capturing detailed features and handling noise, highlighting their potential for clinical application. Despite greater computational demands, their superior performance and diagnostic potential support further exploration in biomedical time-series analysis.
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.