Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42270808›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Machine learning-enabled ECG arrhythmia classification: a systematic and educational study from signal processing to decision support.

Negin Melek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Negin MelekFaculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Gümüşhane University, Gümüşhane, 29000, Turkey. negin.melek@gumushane.edu.tr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electrocardiogram (ECG) signals play a critical role in the early detection of cardiac arrhythmias, which remain a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. While deep learning approaches have achieved high classification accuracy, their increasing complexity often limits interpretability and practical applicability. This study presents a systematic and interpretable framework for multi-class ECG arrhythmia classification, examining the effects of signal processing, feature extraction, feature selection, and evaluation strategies on classification performance. Experiments were conducted on the MIT-BIH Arrhythmia Database using two feature representations: (i) morphological and temporal features, and (ii) a compact wavelet-based representation. Sequential Forward Feature Selection (SFFS) revealed that classification performance saturates at approximately 15 features, indicating that most discriminative information is captured within a compact subset. Using this feature space, the support vector machine (SVM) achieved the best overall performance, reaching 98.54% accuracy with stable results across different configurations. The wavelet-based representation further improved performance balance, yielding lower Golden Distance (GD) values (as low as 0.0249), indicating more consistent behavior across evaluation metrics. Overall, the results demonstrate that carefully designed feature extraction and selection enable classical machine learning methods, particularly SVM, to achieve high and reliable performance, providing an interpretable alternative to more complex black-box models in ECG arrhythmia classification.

Indexed as

Arrhythmias, CardiacElectrocardiographyMachine LearningSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedAlgorithmsClassification AlgorithmsDatabases, FactualHumansSupport Vector MachineWavelet AnalysisArrhythmia detectionClassical machine learningECG signal processingFeature engineeringModel evaluation

Identifiers

PMID42270808
PMCPMC13493956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.