Researcher profile

Hugh Gifford

Hugh Gifford contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 11 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
1works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

1 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

Analysis of an adaptive lead weighted ResNet for multiclass classification of 12-lead ECGs

Background: Twelve lead ECGs are a core diagnostic tool for cardiovascular diseases. Here, we describe and analyse an ensemble deep neural network architecture to classify 24 cardiac abnormalities from 12-lead ECGs. Method: We proposed a squeeze and excite ResNet to automatically learn deep features from 12-lead ECGs, in order to identify 24 cardiac conditions. The deep features were augmented with age and gender features in the final fully connected layers. Output thresholds for each class were set using a constrained grid search. To determine why the model made incorrect predictions, two expert clinicians independently interpreted a random set of 100 misclassified ECGs concerning Left Axis Deviation. Results: Using the bespoke weighted accuracy metric, we achieved a 5-fold cross validation score of 0.684, and sensitivity and specificity of 0.758 and 0.969, respectively. We scored 0.520 on the full test data, and ranked 2nd out of 41 in the official challenge rankings. On a random set of misclassified ECGs, agreement between two clinicians and training labels was poor (clinician 1: kappa = -0.057, clinician 2: kappa = -0.159). In contrast, agreement between the clinicians was very high (kappa = 0.92). Discussion: The proposed prediction model performed well on the validation and hidden test data in comparison to models trained on the same data. We also discovered considerable inconsistency in training labels, which is likely to hinder development of more accurate models.