Wearable PPG Based BP Estimation Methods: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This meta-analysis and systematic review, conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, explores the efficacy of cuff-less blood pressure (BP) monitoring methods, particularly focusing on photoplethysmogram-based technologies. This comprehensive analysis carefully searched prominent databases such as MEDLINE, PubMed, AMED, Embase, and IEEE-Xplore, encompassing 25 studies with a collective participant pool of 21 142 individuals. The study primarily investigates the accuracy and practicality of continuous BP estimation devices and algorithms, aiming to assess their suitability for daily or long-term, as well as their applicability and usability across a broad population. The mean disparities were 4.14 mmHg for systolic blood pressure (SBP) and 2.79 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure (DBP), highlighting a close congruence with established measurement techniques. An in-depth analysis into specific methodologies reveals that Pulse Waveform Analysis (PWA) demonstrates a more favorable performance compared to Pulse Wave Velocity (PWV) for both SBP and DBP, although these differences are not statistically significant. The findings indicate a promising future for wearable devices in short-term BP monitoring scenarios. Both PWA and PWV methods in wearable formats have shown considerable potential as effective tools for BP assessment. However, the study underscores the need for further research, particularly targeting hypertensive populations, to validate the long-term effectiveness and reliability of these wearables. Finally, this investigation is crucial for establishing the role of wearables in ongoing, reliable BP monitoring, especially when considered in conjunction with other health monitoring technologies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".