ArticlePLOS digital health2026
AI-ECG classification for Brugada syndrome: A study of machine learning techniques to optimise for limited datasets.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep neural networks can classify ECGs with high accuracy when training data is abundant. Rare conditions like Brugada syndrome, an inherited arrhythmia syndrome predisposing to sudden death, pose challenges due to data scarcity hindering model training. We evaluated multiple machine learning (ML) approaches to optimise a Brugada ECG classification model using limited training data. The baseline model was trained on a dataset comprising 176 Brugada, 176 right bundle branch block (RBBB) and 352 normal ECGs from Zhongshan Hospital (Zhongshan-baseline dataset), framed as a binary classification task to distinguish Brugada from non-Brugada ECGs. A 25%-75% train-test split was used to exacerbate data scarcity. To enhance training, we incorporated three additional datasets: (i) a different, labelled ECG dataset from Zhongshan Hospital including normal and RBBB ECGs (Zhongshan-pretrain), (ii) an unlabelled ECG dataset from Hammersmith Hospital including Brugada and non-Brugada ECGs (Imperial), (iii) an open-access labelled ECG dataset (PTB-XL). Three strategies were tested: (1) supervised pretraining, (2) self-supervised pretraining with data augmentation, and (3) oversampling using SMOTE (synthetic minority oversampling technique). Each model was evaluated on the unseen internal test set and an external Brugada mimic dataset. The models were re-trained using an 80%-20% train-test split as a secondary analysis. The baseline model achieved 92.2% accuracy, F1-score 0.837, and area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUC) 0.962. Supervised pretraining significantly improved performance when training data was scarce, with the best model pretrained on the Zhongshan-pretrain dataset boosting accuracy (+3.2%), F1-score (+0.071) and AUC + 0.019), with consistent cross-validation performance. Self-supervised pretraining produced smaller and more variable gains, although select models better mitigated against false positives on the Brugada mimic dataset. SMOTE oversampling showed inconsistent effects on performance. Incorporating pretraining and oversampling may facilitate the development of more accurate AI-ECG models for rare diseases when training data is limited but provides diminishing returns when adequate labelled data is available.
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.