Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41858549›Full record

ArticleMachine learning. Health2026

A systematic evaluation of uncertainty quantification techniques in deep learning: a case study in photoplethysmography signal analysis.

Ciaran Bench, Oskar Pfeffer, Vivek Desai, Mohammad Moulaeifard, Loic Coquelin, Peter H Charlton, Nils Strodthoff, Nando Hegemann, Philip J Aston, Andrew Thompson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Machine learning. Health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Ciaran BenchDepartment of Data Science and AI, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-7736-2299
Oskar PfefferPhysikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9456-7694
Vivek DesaiDepartment of Data Science and AI, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-0511-5005
Mohammad MoulaeifardCarl von Ossietzky Universitat Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6195-4436
Loic CoquelinLaboratoire National de Métrologie et d'Essais, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5834-252X
Peter H CharltonDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3836-8655
Nils StrodthoffCarl von Ossietzky Universitat Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4447-0162
Nando HegemannPhysikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3953-9006
Philip J AstonDepartment of Data Science and AI, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0877-0627
Andrew ThompsonDepartment of Data Science and AI, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-5572-0453

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In principle, deep learning models trained on medical time-series, including wearable photoplethysmography sensor data, can provide a means to continuously monitor physiological parameters outside of clinical settings. However, there is considerable risk of poor performance when deployed in practical measurement scenarios leading to negative patient outcomes. Reliable uncertainties accompanying predictions can provide guidance to clinicians in their interpretation of the trustworthiness of model outputs. It is therefore of interest to compare the effectiveness of different approaches. Here we implement an unprecedented set of eight uncertainty quantification (UQ) techniques to models trained on two clinically relevant prediction tasks: atrial fibrillation (AF) detection (classification), and two variants of blood pressure regression. We formulate a comprehensive evaluation procedure to enable a rigorous comparison of these approaches. We observe a complex picture of uncertainty reliability across the different techniques, where the most optimal for a given task depends on the chosen expression of uncertainty, evaluation metric, and scale of reliability assessed. We find that assessing local calibration and adaptivity provides practically relevant insights about model behaviour that otherwise cannot be acquired using more commonly implemented global reliability metrics. We emphasise that criteria for evaluating UQ techniques should cater to the model's practical use case, where the use of a small number of measurements per patient places a premium on achieving small-scale reliability for the chosen expression of uncertainty, while preserving as much predictive performance as possible.

Indexed as

atrial fibrillationblood pressurephotoplethysmographyPPGuncertainty calibrationuncertainty quantification

Identifiers

PMID41858549
PMCPMC12997033

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.