Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39112533›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Examining the challenges of blood pressure estimation via photoplethysmogram.

Suril Mehta, Nipun Kwatra, Mohit Jain, Daniel McDuff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors.

Suril MehtaMicrosoft Research, Bengaluru, India. suril15104@iiitd.ac.in.
Nipun KwatraMicrosoft Research, Bengaluru, India.
Mohit JainMicrosoft Research, Bengaluru, India.
Daniel McDuffMicrosoft Research, Redmond, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of observed wearable sensor data (e.g., photoplethysmograms [PPG]) to infer health measures (e.g., glucose level or blood pressure) is a very active area of research. Such technology can have a significant impact on health screening, chronic disease management and remote monitoring. A common approach is to collect sensor data and corresponding labels from a clinical grade device (e.g., blood pressure cuff) and train deep learning models to map one to the other. Although well intentioned, this approach often ignores a principled analysis of whether the input sensor data have enough information to predict the desired metric. We analyze the task of predicting blood pressure from PPG pulse wave analysis. Our review of the prior work reveals that many papers fall prey to data leakage and unrealistic constraints on the task and preprocessing steps. We propose a set of tools to help determine if the input signal in question (e.g., PPG) is indeed a good predictor of the desired label (e.g., blood pressure). Using our proposed tools, we found that blood pressure prediction using PPG has a high multi-valued mapping factor of 33.2% and low mutual information of 9.8%. In comparison, heart rate prediction using PPG, a well-established task, has a very low multi-valued mapping factor of 0.75% and high mutual information of 87.7%. We argue that these results provide a more realistic representation of the current progress toward the goal of wearable blood pressure measurement via PPG pulse wave analysis. For code, see our project page: https://github.com/lirus7/PPG-BP-Analysis.

Indexed as

Blood PressurePhotoplethysmographyBlood Pressure DeterminationDeep LearningHumansPulse Wave AnalysisSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedWearable Electronic Devices

Identifiers

PMID39112533
PMCPMC11306225

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.