Reusable wearable PPG representations should capture local pulse morphology and broader physiological regularities. Existing pretraining objectives, however, usually apply supervision at the recording or pair level, overlooking that different concepts become reliable over different scopes of waveform evidence. We propose HiPPT, a physiology-grounded framework that matches each supervision source to its appropriate evidence scope. We construct a PPG-Text corpus of over 4 million wrist-worn recordings from 202K users, pairing recordings with waveform-derived morphology and metadata-derived context descriptions. HiPPT combines record-level morphology alignment, which grounds individual recordings in pulse characteristics, with cross-recording context alignment, which aggregates recordings sharing the same metadata tuple to capture context-consistent regularities. Waveform-guided text modeling further recovers masked contextual concepts from PPG patch representations, providing fine-grained waveform-text supervision. Across six downstream tasks spanning blood pressure, vascular stiffness, physiological attributes, and cross-dataset heart-rate estimation, HiPPT achieves the best result on the primary linear-probing metrics. The aligned space also supports zero-shot profiling of age group, sex, and BMI category, individually and jointly, with performance improving as more recordings are aggregated. These results show that evidence-scope matching yields transferable and semantically accessible wearable PPG representations. Code and pretrained weights will be released.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of HiPPT. Record-Level Morphology Alignment grounds each PPG recording in its waveform-derived morphology description. Cross-Recording Context Alignment aggregates a collection of recordings sharing the same metadata tuple and aligns the aggregated representation with the corresponding context description. Waveform-Guided Text Modeling predicts masked contextual concepts conditioned on the remaining text and PPG patch representations, providing fine-grained waveform–text supervision.
Method
SBP
DBP
cfPWV
MAE ↓
R2↑
MAE ↓
R2↑
Balanced ACC ↑
PR-AUC ↑
SimCLR ( Chen et al. 2020 )
11.89 ± 0.69
0.09 ± 0.04
6.71 ± 0.13
0.09 ± 0.04
0.84 ± 0.03
0.80 ± 0.04
MoCo-v3 ( Chen et al. 2021 )
11.98 ± 0.73
0.07 ± 0.04
6.67 ± 0.23
0.08 ± 0.04
0.85 ± 0.05
0.80 ± 0.06
MAE ( He et al. 2021 )
11.95 ± 0.47
0.07 ± 0.05
6.81 ± 0.14
0.05 ± 0.06
0.84 ± 0.03
0.80 ± 0.03
PaPaGei ( Pillai et al. 2024 )
12.42 ± 0.48
0.00 ± 0.05
6.94 ± 0.31
0.00 ± 0.04
0.83 ± 0.05
0.79 ± 0.05
Apple ( Abbaspourazad et al. 2023 )
12.01 ± 0.84
0.07 ± 0.06
6.67 ± 0.28
0.09 ± 0.05
0.85 ± 0.03
0.79 ± 0.03
Table 1: Linear-probing transfer to systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) regression on HBPM-X, and high-stiffness arterial classification on cfPWV. Results are mean ± std under 5 random seeds. Best results are in bold , and second-best results are underlined .
Method
Age
Sex
HR
MAE ↓
R2↑
ACC ↑
ROC-AUC ↑
MAE ↓
R2↑
SimCLR ( Chen et al. 2020 )
7.68 ± 0.89
0.34 ± 0.11
0.68 ± 0.07
0.78 ± 0.08
8.87 ± 3.46
0.44 ± 0.30
MoCo-v3 ( Chen et al. 2021 )
7.73 ± 0.83
0.34 ± 0.11
0.66 ± 0.09
0.77 ± 0.09
9.24 ± 3.83
0.40 ± 0.34
MAE ( He et al. 2021 )
7.08 ± 0.82
0.41 ± 0.11
0.74 ± 0.05
0.80 ± 0.08
8.36 ± 3.11
0.44 ± 0.37
PaPaGei ( Pillai et al. 2024 )
8.83 ± 0.74
0.19 ± 0.11
0.66 ± 0.07
0.73 ± 0.08
8.29 ± 3.53
0.43 ± 0.42
Apple ( Abbaspourazad et al. 2023 )
7.53 ± 0.82
0.37 ± 0.10
0.68 ± 0.07
0.79 ± 0.07
8.18 ± 3.44
0.50 ± 0.39
Table 2: Linear-probing results for attribute probing on HBPM-X and external heart-rate transfer on PPG-DaLiA dataset. Best results are in bold , and second-best results are underlined .
Method
Age Group
Sex
BMI
Joint Acc.
Random
0.2591
0.4860
0.2384
0.0384
Supervised
0.7979
0.6610
0.4056
0.2136
Morphology Alignment
0.2749
0.4881
0.3514
0.0379
+ Context Alignment
0.6272
0.8189
0.5133
0.2560
+ WGTM (HiPPT)
0.7078
0.8313
0.5350
0.2955
Table 3: Zero-shot user-profiling accuracy for age group, sex, BMI, and their joint prediction. The supervised row is a task-specific reference trained with downstream labels. Best results are in bold , and second-best results are underlined .
Figure 2: Zero-shot user-profiling accuracy for different number of PPG recordings used to construct aggregated representation for a single subject.
Figure 3: T-SNE visualization of two methods on the HBPM-X. Users with the same attribute tuple as are marked in the same color.
Figure 4: Visualization of unimodal retrieval. The red star denotes the ground truth attribute tuple of the query PPG, and we use circle to plot the attribute distribution of recalled PPG signals(Age group distribution on the top and BMI group distribution on the right). We also visualize the result by Apple in the X-label.
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: User-level attribute distribution of the HBPM dataset.
Figure 6: User-level attribute distribution of the VS dataset.
Figure 7: cfPWV cohort label statistics. (a) Class counts at the subject and record levels, revealing inverted imbalance. (b) Subject-level continuous cfPWV distribution with the clinical threshold at 10m/s .
Figure 8: Records-per-subject distribution in the cfPWV cohort. The histogram is truncated at 300 for readability; the boxplot shows the full range. Abnormal subjects contribute substantially more recordings on average.
Symbol
Definition
T
Pulse-cycle duration (s)
IHR
Instantaneous heart rate (bpm)
prop_s
Fraction of the cycle spent on the systolic upslope
ΔT
Interval between systolic and diastolic peaks (s)
tsys
Systolic duration (s)
tdia
Diastolic duration (s)
Appendix
Table 4: Handcrafted PPG features used to curate morphology descriptions.
Clause
Slots
Example surface form
Cycle
T , IHR
cardiac cycle 0.96s, 62.76 bpm within normal range
Sys/Dia
tsys , tdia
ventricular contraction 0.38s, relaxation 0.58s
Prop
prop_s
systolic upslope proportion 0.16
DeltaT
ΔT
0.32s duration systolic-diastolic peak interval
AW
AWs , AWd
amplitude to width ratio: systolic 1.20, diastolic 0.80
Appendix
Table 5: Clause inventory for morphology descriptions.
Variable
Condition
Category
Age
Age <18
adolescent
18≤Age<30
young adult
30≤Age<50
middle-aged
Age ≥50
elderly
Sex
male / female
male / female
BMI
BMI <18.5
underweight
Appendix
Table 6: Discretization rules for metadata categories.
Method
SBP MAE ↓
DBP MAE ↓
cfPWV PR-AUC ↑
Age MAE ↓
Sex ROC-AUC ↑
SimCLR ( Chen et al. 2020 )
12.40 ± 0.77
6.92 ± 0.29
0.70 ± 0.23
8.02 ± 0.79
0.76 ± 0.09
MoCo-v3 ( Chen et al. 2021 )
12.75 ± 1.10
7.19 ± 0.43
0.71 ± 0.21
9.28 ± 1.30
0.75 ± 0.09
MAE ( He et al. 2021 )
12.61 ± 0.47
7.21 ± 0.19
0.76 ± 0.26
7.15 ± 0.82
0.79 ± 0.05
PaPaGei ( Pillai et al. 2024 )
12.62 ± 0.53
7.34 ± 0.22
0.73 ± 0.24
7.66 ± 0.88
0.80 ± 0.07
Apple ( Abbaspourazad et al. 2023 )
12.24 ± 0.89
6.98 ± 0.30
0.73 ± 0.26
8.54 ± 1.42
0.77 ± 0.08
SupCon ( Khosla et al. 2020 )
12.27 ± 0.52
7.07 ± 0.22
0.64 ± 0.23
8.23 ± 1.00
0.82 ± 0.08
Appendix
Table 7: Linear-probing results with 10% of the labeled training data. Results follow the same evaluation protocol as the full-data experiments. Best results are in bold ; second-best results are underlined . Ties are marked equally.
Method
SBP MAE ↓
DBP MAE ↓
cfPWV PR-AUC ↑
Age MAE ↓
Sex ROC-AUC ↑
SimCLR ( Chen et al. 2020 )
12.14 ± 0.84
6.75 ± 0.30
0.68 ± 0.12
7.91 ± 0.80
0.77 ± 0.07
MoCo-v3 ( Chen et al. 2021 )
12.24 ± 0.83
6.79 ± 0.29
0.66 ± 0.08
8.75 ± 1.14
0.76 ± 0.08
MAE ( He et al. 2021 )
12.15 ± 0.32
6.94 ± 0.16
0.77 ± 0.06
7.14 ± 0.76
0.81 ± 0.08
PaPaGei ( Pillai et al. 2024 )
12.89 ± 0.48
7.17 ± 0.19
0.76 ± 0.10
7.70 ± 0.84
0.80 ± 0.07
Apple ( Abbaspourazad et al. 2023 )
11.97 ± 0.80
6.62 ± 0.20
0.74 ± 0.17
7.63 ± 0.78
0.78 ± 0.09
SupCon ( Khosla et al. 2020 )
12.12 ± 0.53
6.96 ± 0.15
0.73 ± 0.10
7.81 ± 0.76
0.82 ± 0.08
Appendix
Table 8: Linear-probing results with 30% of the labeled training data. Results follow the same evaluation protocol as the full-data experiments. Best results are in bold ; second-best results are underlined . Ties are marked equally.
Figure 9: Effect of pretraining data scale. HiPPT is pretrained using 10%, 25%, 50%, and 100% of the full corpus. (a) Zero-shot accuracy, recorded-sex probe AUROC, and cross-modal Recall@5. (b) SBP, DBP, and age MAE. Higher is better in (a), whereas lower is better in (b).
PPG encoder states
Masked-token Acc. ↑
Normal
0.709
Zero
0.172
Random
0.186
Drop (Normal − Zero)
0.537
Appendix
Table 9: Lights-out diagnosis of WGTM under different PPG encoder states supplied to decoder cross-attention.
Method
SBP
DBP
cfPWV
MAE ↓
R2↑
MAE ↓
R2↑
Balanced ACC ↑
PR-AUC ↑
HiPPT
11.67 ± 0.48
0.11 ± 0.03
6.57 ± 0.11
0.11 ± 0.05
0.85 ± 0.02
0.84 ± 0.03
HiPPT w/o Age
11.88 ± 0.50
0.08 ± 0.04
6.70 ± 0.16
0.08 ± 0.05
0.84 ± 0.03
0.80 ± 0.03
HiPPT w/o Sex
11.79 ± 0.43
0.10 ± 0.03
6.65 ± 0.14
0.09 ± 0.03
0.85 ± 0.03
0.81 ± 0.04
HiPPT w/o HR
11.77 ± 0.46
0.11 ± 0.04
6.73 ± 0.16
0.11 ± 0.03
0.84 ± 0.04
0.79 ± 0.03
Appendix
Table 10: Linear-probing transfer after removing one explicit attribute from pretraining descriptions. The age- and sex-related texts are removed from context description.
Method
Age
Sex
HR
MAE ↓
R2↑
ACC ↑
ROC-AUC ↑
MAE ↓
R2↑
HiPPT
7.05 ± 0.79
0.42 ± 0.11
0.74 ± 0.06
0.83 ± 0.08
7.65 ± 3.09
0.49 ± 0.36
HiPPT w/o Age
7.22 ± 0.81
0.40 ± 0.11
0.71 ± 0.07
0.82 ± 0.07
8.55 ± 3.84
0.38 ± 0.54
HiPPT w/o Sex
7.08 ± 0.87
0.42 ± 0.11
0.74 ± 0.06
0.82 ± 0.09
7.72 ± 3.60
0.47 ± 0.51
HiPPT w/o HR
7.11 ± 0.82
0.42 ± 0.10
0.74 ± 0.06
0.83 ± 0.08
7.70 ± 3.59
0.48 ± 0.47
Appendix
Table 11: Attribute and external heart-rate probing after leave-one-attribute-out pretraining. The HR ablation removes the explicit instantaneous-heart-rate field from morphology descriptions.
Aggregation
N =1
N =2
N =5
N =10
N =15
Attention
5.10 ± 0.42
10.21 ± 1.09
21.40 ± 2.37
29.55 ± 0.80
29.47 ± 1.89
Mean
5.57 ± 1.60
9.31 ± 1.96
17.46 ± 1.81
25.81 ± 2.21
27.49 ± 2.18
Max
4.88 ± 0.72
8.60 ± 1.36
14.40 ± 2.15
12.84 ± 1.53
13.00 ± 1.96
Appendix
Table 12: Joint zero-shot profiling accuracy (%) for different aggregation operators and numbers of PPG recordings per subject. Joint correctness requires age group, sex, and BMI category to be simultaneously correct, where acquisition time is marginalized. All results use top- 3 candidate retrieval. The best mean result in each column is shown in bold .
Figure 10: Zero-shot profiling accuracy versus retrieval depth k with 10 PPG recordings per subject. Shaded regions denote one standard deviation over five random trials.
Figure 11: Subject-level cfPWV classification error near versus far from the 10m/s clinical cutoff. Bars show mean ± std over five splits (on average 54 near-threshold and 58 far-from-threshold test subjects per split).
Figure 12: Row-normalized BMI confusion matrix for zero-shot profiling, averaged over five random trials.
Photoplethysmography (PPG) plays a central role in wearable health monitoring and clinical decision support. Yet existing approaches to universal PPG representation learning largely focus on signal-level objectives and often overlook patient-level health context, which limits generalization to complex clinical tasks and heterogeneous cohorts. To address this gap, we construct a large-scale paired PPG-EHR multimodal dataset by distilling fragmented medical histories and clinical records into cohesive, patient-level electronic health records (EHR). Building on this resource, we propose Clinical Anchored Pretraining for PPG (CAP). During pretraining, CAP performs cross-modal contrastive alignment that anchors PPG representations to patient-level clinical semantics, guiding the encoder beyond waveform fitting toward modeling consistency in a patient's overall physiological state. During downstream adaptation, the pretrained PPG encoder provides clinically grounded representations that strengthen inductive bias and improve robustness and transferability. Experiments demonstrate that CAP consistently outperforms strong baselines on four diverse downstream tasks. CAP achieves a particularly large gain on respiratory rate prediction (up to +87.6% relative improvement over the state-of-the-art baseline) and delivers an average relative +26.7% across all tasks. We further enhance the interpretability of our approach through comprehensive analyses, including ablations and multiple complementary visualizations of the learned representations. The code for our experiments is available at: https://github.com/gody123gody/CAP .
Chenyang He, Xinyi Shao, Shun Huang +4
Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics Nanjing, Jiangsu, China · Peking University Beijing, Beijing, China · Independent Researcher +1
Photoplethysmography (PPG) is widely recorded by clinical monitors and consumer wearables, providing a scalable source of continuous physiological information. These recordings offer an opportunity for physiological assessment at scale, but realizing this potential requires models to learn from both signal-derived physiological supervision and broader clinical context captured in electronic health records (EHRs). This involves aligning information spanning local observations, care events, and entire visits with PPG representations at corresponding temporal scales. However, existing PPG foundation models primarily rely on task-specific prediction heads, while the medical knowledge of large language models does not necessarily translate into waveform understanding. To bridge this gap, we introduce PPG-LM, the first PPG-language model family to learn physiological representations from both signal-derived supervision and broader clinical context captured in EHRs. To construct clinically grounded captions, we develop an automatic captioning pipeline that generates segment-, event-, and visit-level descriptions from signal measurements and structured EHR records. We then learn from these pairs through a two-stage framework that first establishes segment-language correspondence through contrastive learning and waveform-conditioned captioning, then extends alignment to events and visits through time-aware aggregation and temporal statement matching. Pretrained on approximately 73k hours of PPG, PPG-LM supports language-based recognition, cross-modal retrieval, and segment captioning. Experiments on MC-MED, MIMIC-III, and VitalDB show improved retrieval and caption factuality over language-model baselines and gains over PPG and time-series foundation models on multiple clinical prediction tasks.
Xiaoda Wang, Minxiao Wang, Maxwell A Xu +10
Emory University · University of California, Los Angeles · Google +3
Wearables are widely used for mobile health monitoring, and photoplethysmography (PPG) is a key sensing modality for heart rate and related physiological measurements. However, public in-the-wild PPG datasets remain largely wrist-centric or limited to short, controlled studies, constraining research on emerging wearable form factors. We present Multi-site PPG, an in-the-wild physiological dataset collected from four custom-developed unobtrusive wearables: a smart earring, ring, watch, and necklace. Each device records green and infrared reflective PPG, 3-axis acceleration, and temperature with timestamps for cross-device alignment, while a Polar H10 chest strap provides reference electrocardiogram (ECG). Participants wore the devices for multiple days during daytime activities while continuing their normal routines. The dataset contains over 350 hours of raw data and 230-290 hours of modeling-ready 8-second windows per wearable. We benchmark heuristic, supervised, and self-supervised heart-rate estimation methods, showing substantial body-site differences: the best methods achieve mean absolute errors (MAEs) of 2.30 bpm on the earring, 5.13 bpm on the ring, 8.37 bpm on the watch, and 8.68 bpm on the necklace. We further analyze motion effects and evaluate multi-site and PPG-accelerometer fusion, demonstrating the dataset's value for robust physiological sensing across emerging wearable form factors.