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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.01496 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.01496/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 5 of its 28 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Dec 2021.

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1512.03385/) (2015)
- [Squeeze-and-Excitation Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1709.01507/) (2017)
- [Decoupling Representation and Classifier for Long-Tailed Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.09217/) (2019)
- [Automatic diagnosis of the 12-lead ECG using a deep neural network](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.01949/) (2019)
- [Turning a Blind Eye: Explicit Removal of Biases and Variation from Deep Neural Network Embeddings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.02169/) (2018)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Physiology-Aware CNN and Zero-Shot Multimodal LLMs for ECG Image Classification: A Comparative Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.22889/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.