P. J. Aston | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

Good Practice Guide for quantifying uncertainties for machine learning models applied to photoplethysmography signals

This Good Practice Guide presents work done in the QUMPHY project (Uncertainty quantification for machine learning models applied to photoplethysmography signals) that considered both machine learning and uncertainty quantification for problems which used photoplethysmography (PPG) signals from wearable devices as input. It provides high-level guidance on what types of machine learning model might be used and how different models compare when applied to both regression and classification tasks. It provides guidance on the implementation of different methods for uncertainty quantification, covering both model-dependent and model-independent techniques, and on the validation of the results provided by those methods. It also describes six benchmark problems together with pointers to different benchmark datasets for each problem. Software is described that can assist practitioners in implementing the methods described herein and there is a brief consideration of ethical issues. It concludes with a summary and recommendations.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2021

Robustness of convolutional neural networks to physiological ECG noise

The electrocardiogram (ECG) is one of the most widespread diagnostic tools in healthcare and supports the diagnosis of cardiovascular disorders. Deep learning methods are a successful and popular technique to detect indications of disorders from an ECG signal. However, there are open questions around the robustness of these methods to various factors, including physiological ECG noise. In this study we generate clean and noisy versions of an ECG dataset before applying Symmetric Projection Attractor Reconstruction (SPAR) and scalogram image transformations. A pretrained convolutional neural network is trained using transfer learning to classify these image transforms. For the clean ECG dataset, F1 scores for SPAR attractor and scalogram transforms were 0.70 and 0.79, respectively, and the scores decreased by less than 0.05 for the noisy ECG datasets. Notably, when the network trained on clean data was used to classify the noisy datasets, performance decreases of up to 0.18 in F1 scores were seen. However, when the network trained on the noisy data was used to classify the clean dataset, the performance decrease was less than 0.05. We conclude that physiological ECG noise impacts classification using deep learning methods and careful consideration should be given to the inclusion of noisy ECG signals in the training data when developing supervised networks for ECG classification.

eess.SP↗