HYPE: Predicting Blood Pressure from Photoplethysmograms in a Hypertensive Population
Morassi Sasso, A.; Datta, S.; Jeitler, M.; Steckhan, N.; Kessler, C. S.; Michalsen, A.; Arnrich, B.; Boettinger, E.
Show abstract
Abstract.The state of the art for monitoring hypertension relies on measuring blood pressure (BP) using uncomfortable cuff-based devices. Hence, for increased adherence in monitoring, a better way of measuring BP is needed. That could be achieved through comfortable wearables that contain photoplethysmography (PPG) sensors. There have been several studies showing the possibility of statistically estimating systolic and diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) from PPG signals. However, they are either based on measurements of healthy subjects or on patients on intensive care units (ICUs). Thus, there is a lack of studies with patients out of the normal range of BP and with daily life monitoring out of the ICUs. To address this, we created a dataset (HYPE) composed of data from hypertensive subjects that executed a stress test and had 24-hours monitoring. We then trained and compared machine learning (ML) models to predict BP. We evaluated handcrafted feature extraction approaches vs image representation ones and compared different ML algorithms for both. Moreover, in order to evaluate the models in a different scenario, we used an openly available set from a stress test with healthy subjects (EVAL). The best results for our HYPE dataset were in the stress test and had a mean absolute error (MAE) in mmHg of 8.79 ({+/-}3.17) for SBP and 6.37 ({+/-}2.62) for DBP; for our EVAL dataset it was 14.74 ({+/-}4.06) and 7.12 ({+/-}2.32) respectively. Although having tested a range of signal processing and ML techniques, we were not able to reproduce the small error ranges claimed in the literature. The mixed results suggest a need for more comparative studies with subjects out of the intensive care and across all ranges of blood pressure. Until then, the clinical relevance of PPG-based predictions in daily life should remain an open question.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparison of wearable and clinical devices for acquisition of peripheral nervous system signals 94%
- Feasibility of Ultra-Short Term Analysis of Heart Rate and Systolic Arterial Pressure Variability at Rest and During Stress via Time-domain and Entropy-based Measures 93%
- In-Ear SpO2: A Tool for Wearable, Unobtrusive Monitoring of Hypoxaemia in COVID-19 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- High-Fidelity Measurement of Pulse Arrival Time in Critically Ill Children Using Standard Bedside Monitoring Equipment 94%
- An Open-Access Simultaneous Electrocardiogram and Phonocardiogram Database 93%
- Comparison of feature-based indices derived from photoplethysmogram recorded from different body locations during lower body negative pressure 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Remote digital measurement of visual and auditory markers of Major Depressive Disorder severity and treatment response. 90%
- Biometric linkage of longitudinally collected electronic case report forms and confirmation of subject identity: An open framework for ODK and related tools 89%
- Using wearable and nearable devices in telerehabilitation for COPD: A review of digital endpoints in home-based programs 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.