Skip to content

Findings

1. The classical fusion pattern was reproduced

The qualitative single-SQI hierarchy was broadly recovered. For predefined feature subsets, accuracy again peaked at the five-SQI combination and did not improve when all seven SQIs were included.

Predefined subset Paper accuracy Reproduced accuracy
iSQI + basSQI 0.945 0.900
bSQI + basSQI + pSQI 0.948 0.931
bSQI + basSQI + kSQI + sSQI 0.948 0.944
Five-SQI paper subset 0.949 0.948
All seven SQIs 0.946 0.939

The claim remains functional because the original adjudicated labels were not available.

2. Fixed synthetic balancing created a source shortcut

Synthetic records formed 70.9% of the reproduced poor class. Native and fixed synthetic poor records were strongly separable in SQI space (AUC 0.974), while training on combined synthetic poor transferred weakly to native poor records (AUC 0.583). Near-paper aggregate accuracy therefore did not imply equivalent generalisation to naturally poor ECGs.

Domain-classifier AUCs comparing generated and native poor-signal sources.
Domain separability is a validity diagnostic, not a model-performance score.

3. Support-aware construction repaired most of the failure

Audit Fixed synthetic SMC construction
Raw-waveform source classifier 0.9970 0.8129
84-SQI source classifier 0.9572 0.7973
Transfer AUC 0.8880 0.9294
Poor recall at 95% acceptable specificity 0.0759 0.7321

The matched-random control showed that broader, constrained candidate coverage created most of the gain. SMC added further alignment in task-relevant SQI space; it did not make generated and native distributions equivalent.

4. Temporal representation improved the difficult boundary

On BUT QDB, Medium recall increased from 0.7563 with global LM-MLP to 0.8259 with local SQIs and 0.9077-0.9256 across waveform models. Most remaining errors were Good-Medium confusions; Bad recall was already high.

Model Accuracy Macro-F1 Balanced accuracy Medium recall
Global LM-MLP 0.8691 0.8844 0.8789 0.7563
Local SQI 0.8886 0.9040 0.8979 0.8259
Matched ResNet 0.9355 0.9466 0.9495 0.9256
Full Conformer 0.9284 0.9398 0.9428 0.9198

Matched ResNet and Full Conformer were comparable under paired uncertainty. The supported result is therefore a waveform-representation gain, not a universal Conformer advantage.

5. Set-A and BUT support different architecture conclusions

On Set-A, the Full Conformer led selected operating-point accuracy (0.9128), balanced accuracy (0.8536), PR-AUC (0.8583), and poor recall (0.7475). The selected-five SVM retained the highest ROC-AUC (0.9237), showing that ranking and thresholded performance answer different questions.

Accuracy, class recall, ROC-AUC and PR-AUC for the frozen E31 comparison.
Frozen Set-A comparison. Deep-model error bars denote three-seed standard deviation.