ArticleMachine Learning. Health2025
Generalizable deep learning for photoplethysmography-based blood pressure estimation-A benchmarking study.
Article in Machine Learning. Health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Arterial blood pressure waveform reconstruction estimation from PPG using TCN-BiLSTM.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
- A systematic evaluation of uncertainty quantification techniques in deep learning: a case study in photoplethysmography signal analysis.Machine learning. Health · 2026Article
- MIMIC-III-Ext-PPG, a PPG-based Benchmark Dataset for Cardiovascular and Respiratory Signal Analysis.Scientific data · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Photoplethysmography (PPG)-based blood pressure (BP) estimation represents a promising alternative to cuff-based BP measurements. Recently, an increasing number of deep learning (DL) models have been proposed to infer BP from the raw PPG waveform. However, these models have been predominantly evaluated on in-distribution (ID) test sets, which immediately raises the question of the generalizability of these models to external datasets. To investigate this question, we trained five DL models on the recently released PulseDB dataset, provided ID benchmarking results on this dataset, and then assessed their out-of-distribution (OOD) performance on several external datasets. The best model (XResNet1d101) achieved ID mean absolute errors (MAEs) of 9.0 and 5.8 mmHg for systolic and diastolic BP, respectively, on PulseDB with subject-specific calibration, and 13.9 and 8.5 mmHg, respectively, without calibration. The equivalent MAEs on external test datasets without calibration ranged from 10.0 to 18.6 mmHg (SBP) and 5.9 to 10.3 mmHg (DBP). Our results indicate that performance is strongly influenced by the differences in BP distributions between datasets. We investigated a simple way of improving performance through sample-based domain adaptation and put forward recommendations for training models with good generalization properties. With this work, we hope to educate more researchers about the importance and challenges of OOD generalization.
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.