ArticleScientific reports2026
A reproducible benchmark of QRS detection algorithms across diverse ECG datasets and noise conditions.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate R-peak detection in electrocardiograms is critical for heart rate monitoring, heart rate variability analysis, and cardiac condition diagnosis. However, reliable detection remains challenging in real-world scenarios due to noise, artifacts, and signal variability. A key limitation in current research is the lack of reproducibility and comparability, as algorithms are often tested on varying datasets, hindering direct performance comparisons. To address this, we benchmark 17 R-peak detection algorithms, encompassing traditional signal processing, machine learning, and deep learning approaches, within a unified evaluation framework using five open-access ECG datasets from the PhysioNet platform. These databases represent diverse conditions, including long-term monitoring, arrhythmias, and noisy environments, enabling a standardized evaluation. Our results reveal that under a strict cross-dataset generalization setting, in which ML and DL models were trained on a single dataset without any target-domain adaptation, traditional signal processing methods provided more consistent overall performance. This highlights a trade-off between peak performance on familiar data and generalizable performance under distribution shift, whose extent for data-driven methods may depend substantially on training diversity. To support reproducibility and future benchmarking, we provide a fully open evaluation framework including all implementations, dataset references, and evaluation pipelines. These findings offer guidance for researchers and clinicians selecting R-peak detection algorithms for diverse clinical and practical scenarios.
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.