Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36653426›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Features from the photoplethysmogram and the electrocardiogram for estimating changes in blood pressure.

Eoin Finnegan, Shaun Davidson, Mirae Harford, Peter Watkinson, Lionel Tarassenko, Mauricio Villarroel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Arterial blood pressure waveform reconstruction estimation from PPG using TCN-BiLSTM.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Wearable Flexible Sensors for Cardiovascular Disease Monitoring.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eoin FinneganInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. eoin.finnegan@eng.ox.ac.uk.
Shaun DavidsonInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Mirae HarfordInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Peter WatkinsonCritical Care Research Group, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Lionel TarassenkoInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Mauricio VillarroelInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
University of Oxford · GBOxford BioMedica (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a growing emphasis being placed on the potential for cuffless blood pressure (BP) estimation through modelling of morphological features from the photoplethysmogram (PPG) and electrocardiogram (ECG). However, the appropriate features and models to use remain unclear. We investigated the best features available from the PPG and ECG for BP estimation using both linear and non-linear machine learning models. We conducted a clinical study in which changes in BP ([Formula: see text]BP) were induced by an infusion of phenylephrine in 30 healthy volunteers (53.8% female, 28.0 (9.0) years old). We extracted a large and diverse set of features from both the PPG and the ECG and assessed their individual importance for estimating [Formula: see text]BP through Shapley additive explanation values and a ranking coefficient. We trained, tuned, and evaluated linear (ordinary least squares, OLS) and non-linear (random forest, RF) machine learning models to estimate [Formula: see text]BP in a nested leave-one-subject-out cross-validation framework. We reported the results as correlation coefficient ([Formula: see text]), root mean squared error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE). The non-linear RF model significantly ([Formula: see text]) outperformed the linear OLS model using both the PPG and the ECG signals across all performance metrics. Estimating [Formula: see text]SBP using the PPG alone ([Formula: see text] = 0.86 (0.23), RMSE = 5.66 (4.76) mmHg, MAE = 4.86 (4.29) mmHg) performed significantly better than using the ECG alone ([Formula: see text] = 0.69 (0.45), RMSE = 6.79 (4.76) mmHg, MAE = 5.28 (4.57) mmHg), all [Formula: see text]. The highest ranking features from the PPG largely modelled increasing reflected wave interference driven by changes in arterial stiffness. This finding was supported by changes observed in the PPG waveform in response to the phenylephrine infusion. However, a large number of features were required for accurate BP estimation, highlighting the high complexity of the problem. We conclude that the PPG alone may be further explored as a potential single source, cuffless, blood pressure estimator. The use of the ECG alone is not justified. Non-linear models may perform better as they are able to incorporate interactions between feature values and demographics. However, demographics may not adequately account for the unique and individualised relationship between the extracted features and BP.

Indexed as

Blood Pressure DeterminationPhotoplethysmographyBlood PressureChildElectrocardiographyFemaleHumansMachine LearningMale

Identifiers

PMID36653426
PMCPMC9849280
OpenAlexW4317215138

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.