Exploring the limitations of blood pressure estimation using the photoplethysmography signal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objetive. Hypertension, a leading contributor to cardiovascular morbidity, underscores the need for accurate and continuous blood pressure (BP) monitoring. Photoplethysmography (PPG) emerges as a promising approach for continuous BP monitoring. However, the precision of BP estimates derived from PPG signals has been the subject of ongoing debate, requiring a comprehensive evaluation of their efficacy. This paper aims to provide the potentials and limitations regarding BP estimation from single-site PPG signals. Approach. We developed a calibration-based Siamese ResNet model for BP estimation. We compared the use of normalized PPG (N-PPG) against the normalized invasive arterial BP (N-IABP) signals as input. N-IABP signals, while not directly presenting systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) BP values, are expected to offer more precise estimations than PPG since it is a direct pressure sensor inside the body. Thus, if N-IABP poses challenges in BP estimation, predicting BP from PPG signals might be even more challenging. Main results. Our evaluation, conducted using the AAMI and BHS standards on the VitalDB dataset, revealed that inference using N-IABP signals meet with AAMI standards for both SBP and DBP, with errors of 1.29 ± 6.33 mmHg for systolic pressure and 1.17 ± 5.78 for diastolic pressure. In contrast, N-PPG based inference exhibited inferior performance than N-IABP, presenting 1.49 ± 11.82 mmHg and 0.89 ± 7.27 mmHg for systolic and diastolic pressure respectively in their best setup. Significance. Our findings establish a critical benchmark for PPG performance, providing realistic expectations for its BP estimation capabilities. We concluded that while PPG signals contain BP-correlated information, they may not suffice for accurate prediction.
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 | 0.009 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".