mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

ECG Feature Importance Rankings: Cardiologists vs. Algorithms

arXiv 2304.02577 ↗First posted 5 Apr 2023physics.med-ph cs.LG eess.SPcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Feature importance methods promise to provide a ranking of features according to importance for a given classification task. A wide range of methods exist but their rankings often disagree and they are inherently difficult to evaluate due to a lack of ground truth beyond synthetic datasets. In this work, we put feature importance methods to the test on real-world data in the domain of cardiology, where we try to distinguish three specific pathologies from healthy subjects based on ECG features comparing to features used in cardiologists' decision rules as ground truth. Some methods generally performed well and others performed poorly, while some methods did well on some but not all of the problems considered.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 6 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Apr 2023.

Builds on

6 of 32 references.

References · 6

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
  2. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
  3. 2017Interpretability Beyond Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV)cited by 1,319
  4. 2018All Models are Wrong, but Many are Useful: Learning a Variable's Importance by Studying an Entire Class of Prediction Models Simultaneouslycited by 373
  5. 2020Deep Learning for ECG Analysis: Benchmarks and Insights from PTB-XLcited by 158
  6. 2019Maximum Relevance and Minimum Redundancy Feature Selection Methods for a Marketing Machine Learning Platformcited by 16

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 0; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.

3 papers.