Deriving Health Metrics from the Photoplethysmogram: Benchmarks and Insights from MIMIC-III-Ext-PPG
Authors: Mohammad Moulaeifard, Philip J. Aston, Peter H. Charlton, Nils Strodthoff
Organizations: AI4Health Department, Oldenburg University, Oldenburg, Germany · Department of Data Science and AI, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, United Kingdom · School of Mathematics and Physics, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom · Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Photoplethysmography (PPG) is one of the most widely captured biosignals for clinical prediction tasks, yet PPG-based algorithms are typically trained on small-scale datasets of uncertain quality, which hinders meaningful algorithm comparisons. We present a comprehensive benchmark for PPG-based clinical prediction using the \dbname~dataset, establishing baselines across the full spectrum of clinically relevant applications: multi-class heart rhythm classification, and regression of physiological parameters including respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), and blood pressure (BP). Most notably, we provide the first comprehensive assessment of PPG for general arrhythmia detection beyond atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFLT), with performance stratified by BP, HR, and demographic subgroups. Using established deep learning architectures, we achieved strong performance for AF detection (AUROC = 0.96) and accurate physiological parameter estimation (RR MAE: 2.97 bpm; HR MAE: 1.13 bpm; SBP/DBP MAE: 16.13/8.70 mmHg). Cross-dataset validation demonstrates excellent generalizability for AF detection (AUROC = 0.97), while clinical subgroup analysis reveals marked performance differences across subgroups by BP, HR, and demographic strata. These variations appear to reflect population-specific waveform differences rather than systematic bias in model behavior. This framework establishes the first integrated benchmark for multi-task PPG-based clinical prediction, demonstrating that PPG signals can effectively support multiple simultaneous monitoring tasks and providing essential baselines for future algorithm development.
Figures & tables
Metric
Heart rhythm
RR
HR
BP
Number of subjects
6,189
4,695
5,924
2,391
Number of segments (30s)
6,399,754
5,546,169
5,187,183
2,468,693
Total Duration (h)
∼ 53,331
∼ 46,218
∼ 43,227
∼ 20,572
Age (years, mean ± SD)
64.1 ± 17.0
65.0 ± 16.1
63.9 ± 16.9
63.2 ± 16.2
Weight (kg, mean ± SD)
82.2 ± 22.6
82.0 ± 21.8
82.3 ± 22.6
83.2 ± 21.9
Height (cm, mean ± SD)
169.5 ± 10.5
169.7 ± 10.5
169.4 ± 10.5
169.7 ± 10.4
TABLE I : Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population across different physiological subsets. Values are presented as mean ± SD or percentage (%).
AUROC
Sensitivity (Specificity > 0.8)
Specificity (Sensitivity > 0.8)
Task
Rhythm
XResNet1d101
LeNet1D
XResNet1d101
LeNet1D
XResNet1d101
LeNet1D
AF
AF
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.92
0.98
0.96
AFLT
0.77
0.78
0.62
0.64
0.61
0.62
SAA
SINUS
0.92
0.90
0.89
0.86
0.86
0.84
AF+AFLT
0.95
0.94
0.93
0.92
0.98
0.96
ARRH
SR
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.92
0.89
0.89
TABLE II : In-distribution classification performance for robust AF classification (AF task), sinus versus atrial arrhythmia discrimination (SAA task), and general arrhythmia classification (ARRH task) in terms of label-dependent AUROC for the two models considered in this work.
Baseline
XResNet1d101
LeNet1D
Parameter
MAE
MAE
Bias
95% LoA
MAE
Bias
95% LoA
SBP [mmHg]
19.06
16.13
-2.58
[-43.16, 38.00]
16.65
-1.24
[-43.00, 40.52]
DBP [mmHg]
10.09
8.70
0.79
[-21.34, 22.92]
9.39
2.53
[-20.38, 25.45]
HR [bpm]
14.37
1.13
-0.14
[-8.00, 7.72]
1.61
0.03
[-8.77, 8.84]
RR [bpm]
5.34
2.97
-0.17
[-10.07, 9.72]
4.53
0.31
[-11.89, 12.50]
TABLE III : Regression performance including MAE, Bland–Altman bias, and 95% limits of agreement (LoA) for BP, HR, and RR obtained with a median baseline predictor, XResNet1d101, and LeNet1D.
Fig. 1 : External validation of the rhythm classification performance (using XResNet1d101) demonstrating robust generalization of PPG-based rhythm classification, with AF detection showing exceptional cross-dataset transferability.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Rhythm
Description
Patients
Samples (30s)
Rhythm per Tasks (mapped)
AF (Task 1)
SAA (Task 2)
ARRH (Task 3)
SR
Sinus rhythm
5,316
3,950,724
OTHER
SINUS
SR
STACH
Sinus tachycardia
2,838
1,192,025
OTHER
SINUS
STACH
AF
Atrial fibrillation
1,132
597,769
AF
AF+AFLT
AF
SBRAD
Sinus bradycardia
1,608
198,432
OTHER
SINUS
SBRAD
VPACE
Ventricular pacing
282
126,810
OTHER
OTHER
VPACE
Appendix
TABLE IV : Rhythm mapping after applying sample and patient threshold rules. OTHER is not considered as a separate class, but samples are retained with zero labels for all outputs to improve robustness to non-target rhythms.
BP Category
Systolic (SBP)
Operator
Diastolic (DBP)
Hypotension
<90 mmHg
OR
<60 mmHg
Normal
90 – 119 mmHg
AND
60 – 79 mmHg
Elevated
120 – 129 mmHg
AND
<80 mmHg
Stage 1 Hypertension
130 – 139 mmHg
OR
80 – 89 mmHg
Stage 2 Hypertension
≥140 mmHg
OR
≥90 mmHg
Appendix
TABLE V : BP classification criteria ( [ 58 , 31 ] ). Note that when systolic and diastolic blood pressure values fall into different categories, the hypertension stage is assigned according to the higher category, in accordance with established clinical guideline conventions [ 58 ] .
HR Category
HR (bpm)
Bradycardia
<60
Normal
60 – 100
Tachycardia
>100
Appendix
TABLE VI : HR classification criteria for adults [ 32 ] . Note: sinus tachycardia is defined as a sinus node discharge rate >100 times per minute, i.e., HR >100 bpm.
Category
BMI (kg/m 2 )
Underweight
<18.5
Normal
18.5 – 24.9
Overweight
25.0 – 29.9
Obese
≥30
Appendix
TABLE VII : BMI categories according to the WHO [ 33 ] .
Liu et al. Rhythm
AF Task Mapping
SAA Task Mapping
ARRH Task Mapping
0: Sinus rhythm
OTHER
SINUS
SR
1: Premature ventricular contraction
Excluded
Excluded
Excluded
2: Premature atrial contraction
Excluded
Excluded
Excluded
3: Ventricular tachycardia
OTHER
OTHER
VTACH
4: Supraventricular tachycardia
OTHER
OTHER
SVTACH
5: AF
AF
AF+AFLT
AF
Appendix
TABLE VIII : Rhythm mapping between Liu et al. dataset [ 5 ] and MIMIC-III-Ext-PPG classification tasks
Study
Patients ( n )
Data Duration ( h )
SBP MAE ( mmHg )
DBP MAE ( mmHg )
Data Source/Subset
Ours
2,391
20,572
∼16–17
∼9–10
MIMIC-III ( MIMIC-III-Ext-PPG )
Moulaeifard et al. [ 10 ]
1,474
2,357
∼15–17
∼9–10
MIMIC-III (PulseDB [ 59 ] )
Sanches et al. (MIMIC-BP) [ 49 ]
1,524
380
∼13–14
∼9–10
MIMIC-III (Custom Subset)
Appendix
TABLE IX : Comparison of BP Estimation Performance
Task
Rhythm
Baseline ↑
BP category ↑
HR category ↑
HPN
Normal
Elevated
Stage 1 HTN
Stage 2 HTN
Bradycardia
Normal
Tachycardia
AF
AF
0.96
0.95
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.97
0.88
0.96
0.97
AFLT
0.77
0.80
0.77
0.78
0.80
0.84
0.74
0.76
0.86
SAA
SINUS
0.92
0.88
0.95
0.96
0.97
0.96
0.84
0.91
0.96
AF+AFLT
0.95
0.96
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.97
0.87
0.95
0.97
ARRH
SR
0.93
0.92
0.95
0.96
0.96
0.94
0.72
0.86
0.76
Appendix
TABLE X : AUROC performance of heart rhythm detection across BP and HR categories (XResNet1d101). In-distribution baselines are from Table II . Dashes indicate insufficient samples. HTN: hypertension; HPN: hypotension.
Task
Rhythm
Baseline ↑
BP category ↑
HR category ↑
HPN
Normal
Elevated
Stage 1 HTN
Stage 2 HTN
Bradycardia
Normal
Tachycardia
AF
AF
0.92 / 0.98
0.92 / 0.98
0.99 / 0.99
0.99 / 0.99
0.99 / 0.99
0.94 / 0.99
0.79 / 0.78
0.93 / 0.99
0.96 / 0.97
AFLT
0.62 / 0.61
0.70 / 0.73
0.61 / 0.65
0.54 / 0.70
0.63 / 0.72
0.78 / 0.79
0.51 / 0.50
0.62 / 0.59
0.73 / 0.76
SAA
SINUS
0.89 / 0.86
0.77 / 0.78
0.97 / 0.91
1.00 / 0.95
0.99 / 0.96
0.99 / 0.93
0.70 / 0.74
0.87 / 0.84
0.97 / 0.95
AF+AFLT
0.93 / 0.98
0.92 / 0.98
0.99 / 0.99
0.99 / 1.00
0.99 / 1.00
0.95 / 0.99
0.80 / 0.80
0.92 / 0.98
0.96 / 0.98
ARRH
SR
0.93 / 0.89
0.93 / 0.88
0.95 / 0.94
0.97 / 0.95
0.96 / 0.95
0.94 / 0.92
0.51 / 0.49
0.75 / 0.76
0.58 / 0.58
Appendix
TABLE XI : Sensitivity (at specificity ≥ 0.8) and specificity (at sensitivity ≥ 0.8) across BP and HR categories (XResNet1d101). Values are reported as sensitivity / specificity. Baseline results are from Table II . Dashes indicate insufficient samples.
Task
Rhythm
Baseline ↑
Gender ↑
BMI ↑
Ethnicity ↑
Female
Male
Normal
Overweight
Obese
White
Black
Asian
Hispanic
AF
AF
0.96
0.95
0.96
0.92
0.92
0.98
0.95
0.96
0.98
0.95
AFLT
0.77
0.84
0.75
0.72
0.75
0.75
0.74
0.93
–
–
SAA
SINUS
0.92
0.91
0.93
0.84
0.93
0.96
0.93
0.93
0.98
0.82
AF + AFLT
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.93
0.93
0.97
0.95
0.95
0.98
0.95
ARRH
SR
0.93
0.93
0.92
0.87
0.92
0.95
0.93
0.95
0.98
0.91
Appendix
TABLE XII : Performance (AUROC) across gender, BMI, and ethnicity categories (XResNet1D101). Baseline results are taken from Table II . Dashes indicate insufficient samples. The ”Underweight” BMI category was excluded due to the insufficient number of samples.
Task
Rhythm
Baseline ↑
Gender ↑
BMI ↑
Ethnicity ↑
Female
Male
Normal
Overweight
Obese
White
Black
Asian
Hispanic
AF
AF
0.92 / 0.98
0.92 / 0.98
0.93 / 0.98
0.89 / 0.94
0.87 / 0.92
0.97 / 0.99
0.90 / 0.97
0.95 / 0.98
0.96 / 0.99
0.93
AFLT
0.62 / 0.61
0.74 / 0.74
0.60 / 0.59
0.49 / 0.53
0.54 / 0.60
0.70 / 0.52
0.92 / 0.58
0.89 / 0.91
–
–
SAA
SINUS
0.89 / 0.86
0.86 / 0.84
0.91 / 0.88
0.69 / 0.72
0.92 / 0.88
0.97 / 0.94
0.93 / 0.89
0.93 / 0.91
0.99 / 0.98
0.66 / 0.62
AF+AFLT
0.93 / 0.98
0.93 / 0.98
0.93 / 0.98
0.90 / 0.94
0.88 / 0.93
0.96 / 0.99
0.92 / 0.97
0.93 / 0.96
0.97 / 0.99
0.91 / 0.91
ARRH
SR
0.93 / 0.89
0.93 / 0.90
0.92 / 0.89
0.80 / 0.80
0.92 / 0.88
0.96 / 0.94
0.93 / 0.90
0.96 / 0.93
0.99 / 0.98
0.88 / 0.84
Appendix
TABLE XIII : Sensitivity (at specificity ≥ 0.8 ) and specificity (at sensitivity ≥ 0.8) across demographic groups (XResNet1d101). Values are reported as sensitivity / specificity. Baseline results are from Table II . Dashes indicate insufficient samples.
Original Ethnicity Label
Aggregated Group
WHITE
White
WHITE - RUSSIAN
White
WHITE - EASTERN EUROPEAN
White
WHITE - OTHER EUROPEAN
White
WHITE - BRAZILIAN
White
PORTUGUESE
White
Appendix
TABLE XIV : Mapping of original MIMIC-III ethnicity labels to aggregated ethnicity groups, based on U.S. Office of Management and Budget Statistical Policy Directive No. 15 (1997) [ 34 ] . It is worth noting that due to extremely small numbers of subjects in certain categories (e.g., Caribbean Island, n=1 ; American Indian/Alaska Native, n=2 ; Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, n=2 ; multiracial, n=17 ), these groups were consolidated into the “OTHER” category to ensure statistical stability of subgroup analyses.
Photoplethysmography (PPG) is increasingly recorded by wearable and clinical devices at enormous scale, and a growing number of PPG foundation models (FMs) have been developed to compute reusable representations for various downstream tasks. These models are difficult to compare: different evaluations use different datasets, task definitions, preprocessing, downstream heads, hyperparameter tuning, and baselines. We present PPG-Bench, a unifying open-source benchmark evaluating five public PPG FMs across nine open-access datasets and 26 tasks spanning cardiovascular state estimation, activity, sleep, screening, and identification. We evaluate models under four downstream regimes of increasing adaptability (linear probing, random forests, frozen MLP probes, and end-to-end finetuning), with model-specific hyperparameter optimization and subject-disjoint cross-validation. We also evaluate against three controls: random/constant baseline, a deterministic pulse-rate-variability (PRV) feature set, and a generic time-series FM (MOMENT). Across all 68 task-regime combinations, 35.3% show no meaningful FM advantage over the random/constant baseline, and in 83.8% no PPG-specific FM outperforms both PRV and MOMENT. We also find that added downstream head capacity generally improves performance, but can cause significant degradation if the model is performing at chance/constant level. Current PPG FMs therefore cannot yet claim to provide generalised and transferrable representations of PPG signals, and future evaluation in this field should include checks against simple, non-learned controls. Code for the benchmark and instructions to evaluate more models can be found here - https://github.com/mannas-ai/ppg-bench.
Photoplethysmography (PPG), a non-invasive measure of changes in blood volume, is widely used in both wearable devices and clinical settings. Recent PPG foundation models either use open-source ICU datasets with pretraining paradigms that require curated data and thus complicate generalization to field-like data, or use closed-source field-like PPG data. In contrast, we propose a PPG foundation model that does not require high-quality or field-like pretraining data, and instead leverages accompanying electrocardiogram and respiratory signals in ICU datasets to select contrastive samples during pretraining. Our approach allows the model to retain and learn from noisy PPG segments, improving robustness at inference. Our model, pretrained on 3x fewer subjects than existing state-of-the-art approaches, achieves performance improvements on 14 out of 15 diverse downstream tasks, including field-like daily activity and heart rate prediction. Our results demonstrate that multimodal supervision can integrate complementary physiological information to improve the robustness of PPG foundation models and enhance their generalization to consumer-grade data.
Eloy Geenjaar, Vince Calhoun, Scott Daly +4
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA · Tri-Institutional Center for Translational Research in Neuroimaging and Data Science (TReNDS), Georgia State University, Georgia Institute of Technology, Emory University, Atlanta, USA · Dolby Laboratories, San Francisco, USA
Continuous cuffless blood pressure (BP) monitoring is essential for connected health systems and wearable devices, enabling early detection, longitudinal tracking, and personalized management of cardiovascular disease. Many prior approaches attempt to estimate BP indirectly by reconstructing electrocardiography (ECG) from photoplethysmography (PPG), assuming ECG provides a stronger physiological link to BP. However, ECG sensing is less accessible in wearable settings and may introduce unnecessary complexity. In this work, we first perform a large-scale physiological correlation analysis on the MIMIC-III waveform database, revealing that PPG exhibits substantially stronger coupling with arterial blood pressure (ABP) (∣r∣=0.247, p<0.001) than ECG does (r=0.018, p=0.187), challenging the assumption that ECG provides a superior intermediate representation. Motivated by this insight, we conduct a systematic comparison between direct PPG-to-BP prediction and ECG-mediated pipelines using multiple state-of-the-art deep learning models. Across 1.74M segments from 3,127 patients, direct PPG-to-BP prediction achieves British Hypertension Society Grade A performance (MAESBP=4.82mmHg, MAEDBP=4.31mmHg), outperforming all ECG-mediated approaches, which achieve only Grade B accuracy. Our findings suggest that accurate continuous BP monitoring can be achieved directly from wearable PPG signals, enabling simpler, more efficient pipelines for real-world connected health systems.
Bo Wu, Haoling Wang, Zhuodiao Kuang +1
Department of Informatics and Networked Systems University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, USA · Department of Biostatistics and Health Data Science University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, USA · Language Technologies Institute Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, USA