Erick A Perez Alday1, Annie Gu1, Amit J Shah2, Chad Robichaux1, An-Kwok Ian Wong3, Chengyu Liu4, Feifei Liu5, Ali Bahrami Rad1, Andoni Elola1,6, Salman Seyedi1, Qiao Li1, Ashish Sharma1, Gari D Clifford1,7,8, Matthew A Reyna1,8. 1. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States of America. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States of America. 3. Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States of America. 4. School of Instrument Science and Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China. 5. School of Science, Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan, Shandong, People's Republic of China. 6. Department of Communications Engineering, University of the Basque Country, Spain. 7. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States of America. 8. These authors are joint senior authors.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Vast 12-lead ECGs repositories provide opportunities to develop new machine learning approaches for creating accurate and automatic diagnostic systems for cardiac abnormalities. However, most 12-lead ECG classification studies are trained, tested, or developed in single, small, or relatively homogeneous datasets. In addition, most algorithms focus on identifying small numbers of cardiac arrhythmias that do not represent the complexity and difficulty of ECG interpretation. This work addresses these issues by providing a standard, multi-institutional database and a novel scoring metric through a public competition: the PhysioNet/Computing in Cardiology Challenge 2020. APPROACH: A total of 66 361 12-lead ECG recordings were sourced from six hospital systems from four countries across three continents; 43 101 recordings were posted publicly with a focus on 27 diagnoses. For the first time in a public competition, we required teams to publish open-source code for both training and testing their algorithms, ensuring full scientific reproducibility. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 217 teams submitted 1395 algorithms during the Challenge, representing a diversity of approaches for identifying cardiac abnormalities from both academia and industry. As with previous Challenges, high-performing algorithms exhibited significant drops ([Formula: see text]10%) in performance on the hidden test data. SIGNIFICANCE: Data from diverse institutions allowed us to assess algorithmic generalizability. A novel evaluation metric considered different misclassification errors for different cardiac abnormalities, capturing the outcomes and risks of different diagnoses. Requiring both trained models and code for training models improved the generalizability of submissions, setting a new bar in reproducibility for public data science competitions.
OBJECTIVE: Vast 12-lead ECGs repositories provide opportunities to develop new machine learning approaches for creating accurate and automatic diagnostic systems for cardiac abnormalities. However, most 12-lead ECG classification studies are trained, tested, or developed in single, small, or relatively homogeneous datasets. In addition, most algorithms focus on identifying small numbers of cardiac arrhythmias that do not represent the complexity and difficulty of ECG interpretation. This work addresses these issues by providing a standard, multi-institutional database and a novel scoring metric through a public competition: the PhysioNet/Computing in Cardiology Challenge 2020. APPROACH: A total of 66 361 12-lead ECG recordings were sourced from six hospital systems from four countries across three continents; 43 101 recordings were posted publicly with a focus on 27 diagnoses. For the first time in a public competition, we required teams to publish open-source code for both training and testing their algorithms, ensuring full scientific reproducibility. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 217 teams submitted 1395 algorithms during the Challenge, representing a diversity of approaches for identifying cardiac abnormalities from both academia and industry. As with previous Challenges, high-performing algorithms exhibited significant drops ([Formula: see text]10%) in performance on the hidden test data. SIGNIFICANCE: Data from diverse institutions allowed us to assess algorithmic generalizability. A novel evaluation metric considered different misclassification errors for different cardiac abnormalities, capturing the outcomes and risks of different diagnoses. Requiring both trained models and code for training models improved the generalizability of submissions, setting a new bar in reproducibility for public data science competitions.
Authors: Erick Andres Perez-Alday; Yin Li-Pershing; Aron Bender; Christopher Hamilton; Jason A Thomas; Kyle Johnson; Tiffany L Lee; Ryan Gonzales; Aaron Li; Kelley Newton; Larisa G Tereshchenko Journal: Comput Biol Med Date: 2018-11-17 Impact factor: 4.589
Authors: Emelia J Benjamin; Paul Muntner; Alvaro Alonso; Marcio S Bittencourt; Clifton W Callaway; April P Carson; Alanna M Chamberlain; Alexander R Chang; Susan Cheng; Sandeep R Das; Francesca N Delling; Luc Djousse; Mitchell S V Elkind; Jane F Ferguson; Myriam Fornage; Lori Chaffin Jordan; Sadiya S Khan; Brett M Kissela; Kristen L Knutson; Tak W Kwan; Daniel T Lackland; Tené T Lewis; Judith H Lichtman; Chris T Longenecker; Matthew Shane Loop; Pamela L Lutsey; Seth S Martin; Kunihiro Matsushita; Andrew E Moran; Michael E Mussolino; Martin O'Flaherty; Ambarish Pandey; Amanda M Perak; Wayne D Rosamond; Gregory A Roth; Uchechukwu K A Sampson; Gary M Satou; Emily B Schroeder; Svati H Shah; Nicole L Spartano; Andrew Stokes; David L Tirschwell; Connie W Tsao; Mintu P Turakhia; Lisa B VanWagner; John T Wilkins; Sally S Wong; Salim S Virani Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jonathan W Waks; Colleen M Sitlani; Elsayed Z Soliman; Muammar Kabir; Elyar Ghafoori; Mary L Biggs; Charles A Henrikson; Nona Sotoodehnia; Tor Biering-Sørensen; Sunil K Agarwal; David S Siscovick; Wendy S Post; Scott D Solomon; Alfred E Buxton; Mark E Josephson; Larisa G Tereshchenko Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-04-14 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Patrick Wagner; Nils Strodthoff; Ralf-Dieter Bousseljot; Dieter Kreiseler; Fatima I Lunze; Wojciech Samek; Tobias Schaeffter Journal: Sci Data Date: 2020-05-25 Impact factor: 6.444
Authors: Charlotte Gibbs; Jacob Thalamus; Doris Tove Kristoffersen; Martin Veel Svendsen; Øystein L Holla; Kristian Heldal; Kristina H Haugaa; Jan Hysing Journal: Europace Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Antônio H Ribeiro; Manoel Horta Ribeiro; Gabriela M M Paixão; Derick M Oliveira; Paulo R Gomes; Jéssica A Canazart; Milton P S Ferreira; Carl R Andersson; Peter W Macfarlane; Wagner Meira; Thomas B Schön; Antonio Luiz P Ribeiro Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Matthew A Reyna; Christopher S Josef; Russell Jeter; Supreeth P Shashikumar; M Brandon Westover; Shamim Nemati; Gari D Clifford; Ashish Sharma Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Boyang Tom Jin; Raj Palleti; Siyu Shi; Andrew Y Ng; James V Quinn; Pranav Rajpurkar; David Kim Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2022-10-07 Impact factor: 7.942