ArticlePloS one2025
Transfer learning in ECG diagnosis: Is it effective?
Article in PloS one, 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.
- From PhysioNet to foundation models-a history and potential futures.Physiological measurement · 2026Article
- Interpretable Deep Learning Models for Arrhythmia Classification Based on ECG Signals Using PTB-X Dataset.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- MELEP: A Novel Predictive Measure of Transferability in Multi-label ECG Diagnosis.Journal of healthcare informatics research · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The adoption of deep learning in ECG diagnosis is often hindered by the scarcity of large, well-labeled datasets in real-world scenarios, leading to the use of transfer learning to leverage features learned from larger datasets. Yet the prevailing assumption that transfer learning consistently outperforms training from scratch has never been systematically validated. In this study, we conduct the first extensive empirical study on the effectiveness of transfer learning in multi-label ECG classification, by investigating comparing the fine-tuning performance with that of training from scratch, covering a variety of ECG datasets and deep neural networks. Firstly, We confirm that fine-tuning is the preferable choice for small downstream datasets; however, it does not necessarily improve performance. Secondly, the improvement from fine-tuning declines when the downstream dataset grows. With a sufficiently large dataset, training from scratch can achieve comparable performance, albeit requiring a longer training time to catch up. Thirdly, fine-tuning can accelerate convergence, resulting in faster training process and lower computing cost. Finally, we find that transfer learning exhibits better compatibility with convolutional neural networks than with recurrent neural networks, which are the two most prevalent architectures for time-series ECG applications. Our results underscore the importance of transfer learning in ECG diagnosis, yet depending on the amount of available data, researchers may opt not to use it, considering the non-negligible cost associated with pre-training.
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.