Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40959521›Full record

ArticleMachine Learning. Health2025

Generalizable deep learning for photoplethysmography-based blood pressure estimation-A benchmarking study.

Mohammad Moulaeifard, Peter H Charlton, Nils Strodthoff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Arterial blood pressure waveform reconstruction estimation from PPG using TCN-BiLSTM.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Mohammad MoulaeifardCarl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6195-4436
Peter H CharltonUniversity of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3836-8655
Nils StrodthoffCarl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4447-0162

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

decision support systemsmachine learning algorithmsphotoplethysmographytime series analysis

Identifiers

PMID40959521
PMCPMC12435175

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.