Non-invasive cuff-less blood pressure estimation using a hybrid deep learning model

Conventional blood pressure (BP) measurement methods have different drawbacks such as being invasive, cuff-based or requiring manual operations. There is significant interest in the development of non-invasive, cuff-less and continual BP measurement based on physiological measurement. However, in these methods, extracting features from signals is challenging in the presence of noise or signal distortion. When using machine learning, errors in feature extraction result in errors in BP estimation, therefore, this study explores the use of raw signals as a direct input to a deep learning model. To enable comparison with the traditional machine learning models which use features from the photoplethysmogram and electrocardiogram, a hybrid deep learning model that utilises both raw signals and physical characteristics (age, height, weight and gender) is developed. This hybrid model performs best in terms of both diastolic BP (DBP) and systolic BP (SBP) with the mean absolute error being 3.23 ± 4.75 mmHg and 4.43 ± 6.09 mmHg respectively. DBP and SBP meet the Grade A and Grade B performance requirements of the British Hypertension Society respectively

Survey and evaluation of hypertension machine learning research

Background: Machine learning (ML) is pervasive in all fields of research, from automating tasks to complex decision‐making. However, applications in different specialities are variable and generally limited. Like other conditions, the number of studies employing ML in hypertension research is growing rapidly. In this study, we aimed to survey hypertension research using ML, evaluate the reporting quality, and identify barriers to ML's potential to transform hypertension care. Methods and Results: The Harmonious Understanding of Machine Learning Analytics Network survey questionnaire was applied to 63 hypertension‐related ML research articles published between January 2019 and September 2021. The most common research topics were blood pressure prediction (38%), hypertension (22%), cardiovascular outcomes (6%), blood pressure variability (5%), treatment response (5%), and real‐time blood pressure estimation (5%). The reporting quality of the articles was variable. Only 46% of articles described the study population or derivation cohort. Most articles (81%) reported at least 1 performance measure, but only 40% presented any measures of calibration. Compliance with ethics, patient privacy, and data security regulations were mentioned in 30 (48%) of the articles. Only 14% used geographically or temporally distinct validation data sets. Algorithmic bias was not addressed in any of the articles, with only 6 of them acknowledging risk of bias. Conclusions: Recent ML research on hypertension is limited to exploratory research and has significant shortcomings in reporting quality, model validation, and algorithmic bias. Our analysis identifies areas for improvement that will help pave the way for the realization of the potential of ML in hypertension and facilitate its adoption