Personalized and Explainable Blood Pressure Estimation from PPG via Hybrid CNN--Morphological Features
Organizations: Department of Biomedical Engineering, Hanyang University,, Seoul 04763, South Korea
Abstract
Continuous cuffless blood pressure (BP) monitoring using photoplethysmography (PPG) offers a promising solution for personalized healthcare. However, existing methods have two major limitations. Handcrafted feature-based approaches rely on precise fiducial point detection and are limited to short-term analysis, while deep learning models, despite their accuracy, often operate as black boxes with limited physiological interpretability. To address these challenges, we propose a physiology-guided hybrid framework for personalized BP estimation that couples a convolutional neural network (CNN) branch capturing global and local waveform dynamics with a morphology-prior branch that explicitly encodes person-specific vascular characteristics. By embedding a morphology-based feature set that explicitly encodes individual vascular characteristics, the proposed framework enhances personalization and reduces dependence on large-scale training datasets. Evaluated on a subset of the MIMIC-III database under a subject-specific (personalized) testing protocol, the proposed personalized physiology-guided hybrid approach achieved mean absolute errors (MAEs) of 3.77 mmHg for systolic BP and 2.36 mmHg for diastolic BP, corresponding to relative improvements of 43.7% and 32.4% over a subject-specific (personalized) CNN-only baseline. SHAP-based analysis confirmed that the introduced morphology-prior features align with individual vascular characteristics, reinforcing per-subject interpretability. These findings highlight the potential of personalized, physiology-guided hybrid learning with novel morphological descriptors for accurate and explainable BP monitoring in real-world settings.
Figures & tables
| Comparison Criteria | Conventional Morphological Features | Proposed Hemodynamic Features |
|---|---|---|
| Domain | Geometric Signal Description | Vascular and Hemodynamic Properties |
| Abstraction Level | Descriptive: Quantifies the visible shape of the PPG waveform (width, amplitude, slope). | Physiology-oriented: Encodes vascular properties such as stiffness, compliance, and damping through energy- and decay-related indices. |
| Mathematical Basis | Point-wise: Heavily relies on fiducial points (e.g., peak, valley), making it sensitive to noise and localization errors. | Area/Rate-based: Uses region-level integrals and decay rates over systolic/diastolic phases, improving robustness to fiducial errors and high-frequency artifacts. |
| Link to BP | Empirical Association: Uses waveform shape changes that correlate with BP but are only weakly tied to specific regulatory mechanisms. | Physiology-guided Association: Features are constructed to reflect determinants of BP—such as arterial stiffness, vascular compliance, and peripheral resistance—rather than geometry alone. |
| Feature | Mathematical Meaning | Physiological Interpretation | Design Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| SUA | Accumulated first derivative from onset to systolic peak | Proxy for stroke volume and arterial compliance | Hemodynamic Relevance |
| PNRS | Mean first derivative after dicrotic notch | Reflective wave slope, indicator of arterial stiffness | Hemodynamic Relevance |
| NPVA | Area difference before and after notch, normalized by total area | Balance of systolic and diastolic energy | Global Energy Representation |
| SDE | Sum of squared second-order derivatives | Signal roughness; reflects vascular tension or resistance | Differential Shape Encoding |
| TE | Shannon entropy of post-notch segment | Morphological irregularity in diastolic tail | Global Energy Representation |
| HET | Time to reach 50% of total energy | Symmetry of energy distribution; waveform temporal centroid | Global Energy Representation |
| Aspect | Fiducial-Based Handcrafted Features | End-to-End Deep Models | Proposed Hybrid CNN + Physiological Priors |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input Representation | Discrete waveform landmarks | Raw waveform samples | Raw PPG + priors |
| Physiological Interpretability | Moderate | Low | High |
| Robustness to Noise / Motion | Low | Moderate | High |
| Data Requirements | Low | High | Moderate |
| Computational Complexity | Low | High | Moderate |
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Optimizer | Adam |
| Learning rate | |
| Loss | MSE (joint SBP/DBP regression) |
| Batch size | 32 |
| Epochs | 100 |
| Dropout | 0.5 |
| Configuration | MAE SBP | MAE DBP | Params (K) | FLOPs (M) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNN Only (Baseline) | 6.70 1.02 | 3.49 0.65 | 60.0 | 3.12 |
| CNN + Conventional Features | 3.99 0.48 | 2.78 0.61 | 101.9 | 3.16 |
| CNN + Proposed Features (Ours) | 3.77 0.50 | 2.36 0.40 | 101.9 | 3.16 |
| Configuration | MAE SBP | MAE DBP |
|---|---|---|
| CNN Only (Baseline) | 9.14 1.14 | 5.01 1.03 |
| CNN + Conventional Features | 9.03 1.02 | 4.97 1.10 |
| CNN + Proposed Features (Ours) | 8.73 1.15 | 4.52 1.20 |
| Year | Study | Dataset | Personalization Approach | MAE (SBP / DBP) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Leitner et al. Baseline [ 27 ] | MIMIC-III Subset | None | 4.59 / 2.72 |
| 2022 | Leitner et al. Transfer [ 27 ] | MIMIC-III Subset | Pretraining + Fine-tuning | 3.52 / 2.20 |
| 2023 | Fan et al. [ 28 ] | MIMIC-II + Real-world | Pretraining + Adapter | 6.68 / 3.91 |
| 2022 | Zhao et al. [ 33 ] | MIMIC-III Subset | Pretraining + Fine-tuning | 8.44 / 8.26 |
| 2024 | Wang et al. [ 34 ] | Real-world (IoT) | Personalized incremental learning | 3.11 / 2.47 |
| 2024 | Guo et al. [ 35 ] | Multi-domain | Meta-learning + Fine-tuning | 7.46 / 4.51 |