Vision-language classification of Torsades de Pointes risk from pseudo-coloured ECG images: do T-wave morphology and colour context help or hinder?
Organizations: School of Computing, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 5TG, United Kingdom
Abstract
Contextual prompting is widely presented as a cheap route to better performance from vision models, but the evidence comes largely from benchmarks in which an attribute named in a prompt is also present in the image, confounding the two channels. We investigate the significance of context for a semantically complex biomedical signal classification task using a domain-adapted vision-language model, BiomedCLIP. Building on our previous work that renders electrocardiogram (ECG) signals as colour-enhanced images to flag Torsades de Pointes risk using the QT-nomogram and pseudo-colouring technique, we cross four context strategies with four T-wave morphology label sets, evaluated zero-shot and with a class-balanced linear probe, under five-fold stratified cross-validation on 9,789 images. Zero-shot inference is unusable. Once trained, the colour-enhanced images outperform the colourless ones on every metric: balanced accuracy 0.903 versus 0.825, sensitivity 0.914 versus 0.827, specificity 0.892 versus 0.823, ROC-AUC 0.955 versus 0.888 and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) 0.437 versus 0.311. Crossing colour-in-image with colour-in-prompt separates the confounded channels: the image contributes +0.126 MCC (+0.078 balanced accuracy, +0.067 ROC-AUC) whether or not the prompt names colour, whereas naming it changes nothing under any metric. Context is two-sided: the best prompt set gains 0.008 MCC where colour is present and 0.016 where it is not, while the worst loses 0.017 and 0.013. For a signal rendered as an image, the leverage lies in how the signal is drawn rather than in how it is described - and where the endpoint is an interval measurement, prompts naming T-wave morphology describe the wrong quantity.
Figures & tables
| Pseudo-coloured | Colourless | |||||||||||||
| Set | Strategy | Sens. | Spec. | BA | PPV | MCC | AUC | Sens. | Spec. | BA | PPV | MCC | AUC | |
| No Label | C̄ + M | 0.82 | 0.21 | 0.52 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.51 | 0.96 | 0.10 | 0.53 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.52 | |
| No Label | C + M̄ | 0.97 | 0.20 | 0.58 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.58 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.50 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.50 | |
| No Label | C + M | 0.88 | 0.18 | 0.53 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.52 | 0.97 | 0.05 | 0.51 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.51 | |
| No Label | C̄ + M̄ | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.50 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.50 | |
| L1 | C̄ + M | 0.31 | 0.80 | 0.56 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.55 | 0.92 | 0.13 | 0.53 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.52 | |
| Pseudo-coloured | Colourless | |||||||||||||
| Set | Strategy | Sens. | Spec. | BA | PPV | MCC | AUC | Sens. | Spec. | BA | PPV | MCC | AUC | |
| No Label | C̄ + M | 0.917 | 0.893 | 0.905 | 0.242 | 0.439 | 0.956 | 0.823 | 0.821 | 0.822 | 0.155 | 0.307 | 0.888 | |
| No Label | C + M̄ | 0.917 | 0.891 | 0.904 | 0.239 | 0.437 | 0.954 | 0.823 | 0.822 | 0.823 | 0.155 | 0.308 | 0.888 | |
| No Label | C + M | 0.917 | 0.893 | 0.905 | 0.242 | 0.439 | 0.956 | 0.829 | 0.822 | 0.826 | 0.156 | 0.311 | 0.888 | |
| No Label | C̄ + M̄ | 0.917 | 0.891 | 0.904 | 0.240 | 0.437 | 0.956 | 0.829 | 0.824 | 0.826 | 0.157 | 0.312 | 0.890 | |
| L1 | C̄ + M | 0.911 | 0.896 | 0.904 | 0.246 | 0.442 | 0.958 | 0.829 | 0.824 | 0.826 | 0.157 | 0.312 | 0.888 | |
| Colour in the image | |||
| Colour in the prompt | Present | Absent | Image effect |
| MCC | |||
| Named | 0.436 (0.010) | 0.310 (0.013) | |
| Not named | 0.438 (0.009) | 0.311 (0.009) | |
| Prompt effect | ( ) | ( ) | interaction |
| Balanced accuracy | |||
Electrocardiogram Classification
Electrocardiogram classification uses machine learning to identify heart rhythms and cardiac conditions from ECG waveforms for screening, diagnosis, and monitoring.
See all 116 papers