ArticleScientific reports2024
Examining the challenges of blood pressure estimation via photoplethysmogram.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of dataset integrity, calibration and signal quality in neural network-based blood pressure estimation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluating cross-dataset transfer learning for photoplethysmography-based blood pressure estimation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Photoplethysmography acceleration indices as digital biomarkers of cardiometabolic health.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Article
- A Novel Wearable Device for Continuous Blood Pressure Monitoring Utilizing Strain Gauge Technology.Biosensors · 2025Article
- Combating cardiovascular disease disparities: The potential role of artificial intelligence.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2025Article
- Multi-Source Causal Invariance for Cuffless Blood Pressure Estimation Based on Photoplethysmography Signal Features.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.