Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36611403›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Interpretable Machine Learning Techniques in ECG-Based Heart Disease Classification: A Systematic Review.

Yehualashet Megersa Ayano, Friedhelm Schwenker, Bisrat Derebssa Dufera, Taye Girma Debelee

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
15.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 102 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Yehualashet Megersa AyanoAddis Ababa Institute of Technology, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa 11760, Ethiopia.ORCID 0000-0001-5591-2240
Friedhelm SchwenkerInstitute of Neural Information, University of Ulm, 89069 Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5118-0812
Bisrat Derebssa DuferaAddis Ababa Institute of Technology, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa 11760, Ethiopia.ORCID 0000-0003-3377-0661
Taye Girma DebeleeEthiopian Artificial Intelligence Institute, Addis Ababa 40782, Ethiopia.ORCID 0000-0002-0876-2021
Addis Ababa University · ETAddis Ababa Science and Technology University · ETUniversität Ulm · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Heart disease is one of the leading causes of mortality throughout the world. Among the different heart diagnosis techniques, an electrocardiogram (ECG) is the least expensive non-invasive procedure. However, the following are challenges: the scarcity of medical experts, the complexity of ECG interpretations, the manifestation similarities of heart disease in ECG signals, and heart disease comorbidity. Machine learning algorithms are viable alternatives to the traditional diagnoses of heart disease from ECG signals. However, the black box nature of complex machine learning algorithms and the difficulty in explaining a model's outcomes are obstacles for medical practitioners in having confidence in machine learning models. This observation paves the way for interpretable machine learning (IML) models as diagnostic tools that can build a physician's trust and provide evidence-based diagnoses. Therefore, in this systematic literature review, we studied and analyzed the research landscape in interpretable machine learning techniques by focusing on heart disease diagnosis from an ECG signal. In this regard, the contribution of our work is manifold; first, we present an elaborate discussion on interpretable machine learning techniques. In addition, we identify and characterize ECG signal recording datasets that are readily available for machine learning-based tasks. Furthermore, we identify the progress that has been achieved in ECG signal interpretation using IML techniques. Finally, we discuss the limitations and challenges of IML techniques in interpreting ECG signals.

Indexed as

ECGheart diseaseIMLinterpretablemachine learning

Identifiers

PMID36611403
PMCPMC9818170
OpenAlexW4313361314

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.