ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluating cross-dataset transfer learning for photoplethysmography-based blood pressure estimation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Non-invasive, continuous blood pressure (BP) monitoring using photoplethysmography (PPG) remains challenging due to limited subject-specific data and domain shifts between recording environments. This study evaluates the performance of cross-dataset transfer learning for BP estimation. We developed a compact version of the BP-CRNN model with reduced trainable parameters to allow effective training on small datasets. Experiments were conducted using the MIMIC-III and VitalDB databases, which include PPG signals and continuous invasive BP measurements. Pre-trained models were first established on one dataset and then fine-tuned using subject-specific data from the other dataset. The cross-dataset transfer learning approach, evaluated on 200 patients, achieved mean absolute errors of 3.36 mmHg for systolic and 1.81 mmHg for diastolic BP, reflecting an approximately 13% improvement over models trained without transfer learning. These results satisfy the AAMI and BHS standards. The performance gap between cross-dataset and intra-dataset transfer learning was within 1% and not statistically significant. These findings demonstrate that cross-dataset transfer learning can effectively leverage knowledge from large-scale medical datasets to improve BP estimation accuracy, particularly in domains with limited data availability and varying measurement conditions.
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.