Key result
PPG-only models match ECG-inclusive models for blood pressure estimation with ~16 mmHg mean error.
Why the study?
Continuous non-invasive blood pressure monitoring is promising, but questions persist regarding which signal type (PPG or ECG) contributes more predictive value.
Do machine learning models using PPG and/or ECG signals accurately estimate systolic blood pressure compared to invasive arterial blood pressure?
Do machine learning models using PPG and/or ECG signals accurately estimate systolic blood pressure compared to invasive arterial blood pressure?
Machine learning models using PPG signals alone can estimate systolic blood pressure as effectively as those combining PPG and ECG, though current accuracy levels (BHS Grade D) suggest personalized calibration is needed for clinical use.
Should not yet change practice due to limited accuracy; supports PPG-only models but leaves open personalized calibration for clinical use.
Continuous non-invasive blood pressure monitoring holds significant promise for cardiovascular disease management, yet cuff-based methods remain limited by their intermittent nature. Machine learning approaches leveraging photoplethysmography (PPG) and electrocardiography (ECG) signals present compelling alternatives, though questions persist about which signal type contributes more predictive value. This study compares traditional machine learning models, ensemble methods, and deep learning architectures for estimating systolic blood pressure from physiological waveforms. We extracted 55 features from PPG and ECG recordings of 100 subjects in the MIMIC-III Waveform Database, yielding 3000 segments with invasive arterial blood pressure as ground truth. Data splitting was performed at the subject level (70/15/15 train/validation/test) to prevent data leakage. Evaluation included regression metrics, British Hypertension Society grading, SHAP-based explainability, and ablation studies. Among all models, LightGBM achieved the best performance with mean absolute error of 15.97 mmHg, placing it at BHS Grade D. While SHAP analysis showed ECG features contributing 54.7% of importance versus 45.3% for PPG, our ablation study revealed that PPG-only models achieved comparable performance (MAE 15.97 vs. 16.23 mmHg), with the difference not statistically significant (p = 0.226). These results suggest that PPG-only wearable devices are viable for blood pressure estimation, as adding ECG features provides no statistically significant improvement. However, all configurations achieved only BHS Grade D, indicating that personalized calibration may be necessary for clinical acceptability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Naskinova et al. (2026) studied this question. PPG-only models for blood pressure estimation achieved comparable performance to those including ECG features, with a mean absolute error of 15.97 mmHg (p = 0.226).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: