TY - JOUR
T1 - QRS detection in single-lead, telehealth electrocardiogram signals
T2 - Benchmarking open-source algorithms
AU - SAFER Investigators
AU - Kristof, Florian
AU - Kapsecker, Maximilian
AU - Nissen, Leon
AU - Brimicombe, James
AU - Cowie, Martin R.
AU - Ding, Zixuan
AU - Dymond, Andrew
AU - Jonas, Stephan M.
AU - Lindén, Hannah Clair
AU - Lip, Gregory Y.H.
AU - Williams, Kate
AU - Mant, Jonathan
AU - Charlton, Peter H.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 Kristof et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2024/8/1
Y1 - 2024/8/1
N2 - Background and objectives A key step in electrocardiogram (ECG) analysis is the detection of QRS complexes, particularly for arrhythmia detection. Telehealth ECGs present a new challenge for automated analysis as they are noisier than traditional clinical ECGs. The aim of this study was to identify the best-performing open-source QRS detector for use with telehealth ECGs. Methods The performance of 18 open-source QRS detectors was assessed on six datasets. These included four datasets of ECGs collected under supervision, and two datasets of telehealth ECGs collected without clinical supervision. The telehealth ECGs, consisting of single-lead ECGs recorded between the hands, included a novel dataset of 479 ECGs collected in the SAFER study of screening for atrial fibrillation (AF). Performance was assessed against manual annotations. Results A total of 12 QRS detectors performed well on ECGs collected under clinical supervision (F1 score ≥0.96). However, fewer performed well on telehealth ECGs: five performed well on the TELE ECG Database; six performed well on high-quality SAFER data; and performance was poorer on low-quality SAFER data (three QRS detectors achieved F1 of 0.78-0.84). The presence of AF had little impact on performance. Conclusions The Neurokit and University of New South Wales QRS detectors performed best in this study. These performed sufficiently well on high-quality telehealth ECGs, but not on low-quality ECGs. This demonstrates the need to handle low-quality ECGs appropriately to ensure only ECGs which can be accurately analysed are used for clinical decision making.
AB - Background and objectives A key step in electrocardiogram (ECG) analysis is the detection of QRS complexes, particularly for arrhythmia detection. Telehealth ECGs present a new challenge for automated analysis as they are noisier than traditional clinical ECGs. The aim of this study was to identify the best-performing open-source QRS detector for use with telehealth ECGs. Methods The performance of 18 open-source QRS detectors was assessed on six datasets. These included four datasets of ECGs collected under supervision, and two datasets of telehealth ECGs collected without clinical supervision. The telehealth ECGs, consisting of single-lead ECGs recorded between the hands, included a novel dataset of 479 ECGs collected in the SAFER study of screening for atrial fibrillation (AF). Performance was assessed against manual annotations. Results A total of 12 QRS detectors performed well on ECGs collected under clinical supervision (F1 score ≥0.96). However, fewer performed well on telehealth ECGs: five performed well on the TELE ECG Database; six performed well on high-quality SAFER data; and performance was poorer on low-quality SAFER data (three QRS detectors achieved F1 of 0.78-0.84). The presence of AF had little impact on performance. Conclusions The Neurokit and University of New South Wales QRS detectors performed best in this study. These performed sufficiently well on high-quality telehealth ECGs, but not on low-quality ECGs. This demonstrates the need to handle low-quality ECGs appropriately to ensure only ECGs which can be accurately analysed are used for clinical decision making.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85201860246&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000538
DO - 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000538
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85201860246
SN - 2767-3170
VL - 3
JO - PLOS Digital Health
JF - PLOS Digital Health
IS - 8
M1 - e0000538
ER -