Key result
Inter-subject configuration performance for blood pressure estimation from photoplethysmography was vastly inferior to intra-subject configuration, suggesting algorithms in intra-subject settings learn to identify patients rather than predict blood pressure.
Why the study?
Previous photoplethysmography-based blood pressure estimation studies showed impressive results that may be excessively optimistic due to their train/test split configuration.
Does the data splitting strategy (intra- vs inter-subject) affect the performance of machine learning algorithms for estimating blood pressure from photoplethysmography?
Observational (n=633)
No
Does the data splitting strategy (intra- vs inter-subject) affect the performance of machine learning algorithms for estimating blood pressure from photoplethysmography?
Absolute Event Rate: 20.77% vs 4.31%
Algorithms estimating blood pressure from PPG using intra-subject data splitting may be learning to identify patients rather than predicting blood pressure, highlighting the critical need for inter-subject validation.
Prior PPG-BP estimates appear excessively optimistic; challenges published performance claims and leaves open reliable cuffless monitoring.
Cardiovascular diseases are the leading causes of death, and blood pressure (BP) monitoring is essential for prevention, diagnosis, assessment, and treatment. Photoplethysmography (PPG) is a low-cost opto-electronic technique for BP measurement that allows the acquisition of a modulated light signal highly correlated with BP. There are several reports of methods to estimate BP from PPG with impressive results; in this study, we demonstrate that the previous results are excessively optimistic because of their train/test split configuration. To manage this limitation, we considered intra- and inter-subject data arrangements and demonstrated how they affect the results of feature-based BP estimation algorithms (i.e., XGBoost, LightGBM, and CatBoost) and signal-based algorithms (i.e., Residual U-Net, ResNet-18, and ResNet-LSTM). Inter-subject configuration performance is inferior to intra-subject configuration performance, regardless of the model. We also showed that, using only demographic attributes (i.e., age, sex, weight, and subject index number), a regression model achieved results comparable to those obtained in an intra-subject scenario.Although limited to a public clinical database, our findings suggest that algorithms that use an intra-subject setting without a calibration strategy may be learning to identify patients and not predict BP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Costa et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Blood pressure estimation (n=633). Inter-subject data splitting configuration vs. Intra-subject data splitting configuration was evaluated on Systolic blood pressure estimation accuracy (standard deviation of error in mmHg). Inter-subject configuration performance for blood pressure estimation from photoplethysmography was vastly inferior to intra-subject configuration, suggesting algorithms in intra-subject settings learn to identify patients rather than predict blood pressure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: