Measured, not labelled: un-analyzable input versus misclassification in single-lead wearable ECG

OBJECTIVE: Wearable single-lead ECG has expanded arrhythmia screening, but many recordings are inconclusive, and each corpus defines that word differently. We ask how much deployment error is un-analyzable input rather than misclassification when analyzability is measured with one instrument. Approach. We evaluate three diagnostic databases in-domain and leave-dataset-out under a strict loss counting windows carrying each corpus's inconclusive label as errors unless deferred. We score analyzability with an unsupervised morphological criterion calibrated against three experts on free-living ECG. Reference unreadability is sparse and imbalanced: only seven of 15 subjects contain an unreadable window and one supplies 88% of all unreadable windows. Thresholded sensitivity and every prevalence or true-share correction are therefore exploratory. Main results. The criterion flags almost all expert-unreadable windows but only subsets of the windows labelled inconclusive by their corpora: an inconclusive rate measures convention as much as signal. At tau_a = 0.50, criterion-positive windows are 8.1%, 56.7% and 69.6% of the strict proxy loss on Holter, handheld and patch. The true-share point intervals lie below 50% on handheld and above it on patch, but joint calibration-and-sampling envelopes span 50% on both and still do at the Youden threshold 0.60. On handheld, the calibration-only envelope is more than twice as wide as the corpus-sampling-only envelope. Gate-versus-confidence ordering changes with the accounting and corpus; no general selective-risk advantage of the gate is established. Significance. Corpus labels, criterion flags and latent expert unreadability must not be conflated. A gate can win by predicting a labelling convention, and this retrospective study validates neither transfer to smartwatch dry electrodes nor improvement in patient outcomes. Measure the inconclusive rate with a stated criterion on the raw signal; do not inherit it from a corpus label.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Physiological Measurement
Published
2026-10-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6579/aebae3
Primary Topic
ECG Monitoring and Analysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Measured, not labelled: un-analyzable input versus misclassification in single-lead wearable ECG

Yunfei Cheng, Peng Deng, Huibin Sun, Ruichen Yang et al.
3 links
Physiological Measurement
ECG Monitoring and Analysis
article

Measured, not labelled: un-analyzable input versus misclassification in single-lead wearable ECG

Yunfei Cheng, Peng Deng, Huibin Sun, Ruichen Yang, Yun Lian
article en

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Wearable single-lead ECG has expanded arrhythmia screening, but many recordings are inconclusive, and each corpus defines that word differently. We ask how much deployment error is un-analyzable input rather than misclassification when analyzability is measured with one instrument. Approach. We evaluate three diagnostic databases in-domain and leave-dataset-out under a strict loss counting windows carrying each corpus's inconclusive label as errors unless deferred. We score analyzability with an unsupervised morphological criterion calibrated against three experts on free-living ECG. Reference unreadability is sparse and imbalanced: only seven of 15 subjects contain an unreadable window and one supplies 88% of all unreadable windows. Thresholded sensitivity and every prevalence or true-share correction are therefore exploratory. Main results. The criterion flags almost all expert-unreadable windows but only subsets of the windows labelled inconclusive by their corpora: an inconclusive rate measures convention as much as signal. At tau_a = 0.50, criterion-positive windows are 8.1%, 56.7% and 69.6% of the strict proxy loss on Holter, handheld and patch. The true-share point intervals lie below 50% on handheld and above it on patch, but joint calibration-and-sampling envelopes span 50% on both and still do at the Youden threshold 0.60. On handheld, the calibration-only envelope is more than twice as wide as the corpus-sampling-only envelope. Gate-versus-confidence ordering changes with the accounting and corpus; no general selective-risk advantage of the gate is established. Significance. Corpus labels, criterion flags and latent expert unreadability must not be conflated. A gate can win by predicting a labelling convention, and this retrospective study validates neither transfer to smartwatch dry electrodes nor improvement in patient outcomes. Measure the inconclusive rate with a stated criterion on the raw signal; do not inherit it from a corpus label.

Physiological Measurement
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
ECG Monitoring and Analysis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon