ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2026
Employing machine learning techniques for non-invasive blood pressure classification using photoplethysmography signals.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Regulating blood pressure (BP) effectively is vital for maintaining health and ensuring survival, yet elevation and fluctuation in BP can lead to significant health threats. Traditional methods for measuring BP, such as cuff-based and invasive procedures, can be cumbersome and do not allow for continuous measurements. In response to these challenges, our research focuses on enhancing non-invasive BP monitoring by leveraging photoplethysmography (PPG) signals in conjunction with sophisticated machine learning (ML) techniques. Our research analyzed PPG data from a diverse cohort of subjects, ranging in age from 21 to 86, including both individuals in good health and those with underlying health conditions. The analysis involved rigorous preprocessing and feature extraction processes. To enhance computational efficiency and mitigate the risk of overfitting, we applied four distinct feature selection strategies. The features identified by each method were then utilized in five ML classification models using k-fold cross validation to differentiate BP across four categories. Our findings indicate that the ensemble-based extra trees classifier (ETC) model, combined with the SelectFromModel feature selection approach, achieved remarkable accuracy of 91.13% on the test dataset. The F1 scores for the four BP categories were 93.94%, 89.31%, 88.25%, and 88.33%, respectively. Given the imbalance in dataset, we adopted two strategies for train data balancing in the second phase of our study, which boosted the test accuracy to 93.25%. The improved F1 scores for the four BP categories reached 95.34%, 90.80%, 94%, and 91.11%, respectively, underscoring the efficacy of our method in BP classification and its potential for broader application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42560452What 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.