ArticleScientific reports2026
The role of dataset integrity, calibration and signal quality in neural network-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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cuffless blood pressure (BP) estimation via photoplethysmography (PPG) and machine learning has been widely studied, yet reported accuracy remains below clinically acceptable levels, limiting adoption in sport, ambient living, and telemedicine. This study systematically examines potential error sources underlying these performance gaps, with emphasis on: dataset selection, signal synchronization, subject-specific calibration, and data leakage. Three neural networks-a multilayer perceptron (MLP_BP), residual network (Res_BP), and temporal convolutional network (TCN_BP)-were evaluated on two curated public datasets derived from MIMIC III and VitalDB, differing primarily in signal synchronization. MLP_BP uses scalar features from ECG and PPG signals, including pulse arrival time, heart rate, and variability; Res_BP and TCN_BP additionally process PPG signals. Subject-wise splits prevent data leakage, and calibration is applied using three to nine initial reference measurements per subject. Models trained on VitalDB consistently outperform those trained on MIMIC III, particularly for systolic BP, underscoring the importance of synchronized signals. Subject-specific calibration improves performance, with diminishing returns beyond three measurements. Calibrated models reach clinically acceptable accuracy for diastolic BP, while systolic BP remains challenging using PPG alone. These findings suggest that dataset integrity and proper calibration may matter more than model architecture in cuffless BP estimation.
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.