Benchmark Problems and Benchmark Datasets for the evaluation of Machine and Deep Learning methods on Photoplethysmography signals: the D4 report from the QUMPHY project

This report is part of the Qumphy project (22HLT01 Qumphy) that is funded by the European Union and is dedicated to the development of measures to quantify the uncertainties associated with Machine Learning algorithms applied to medical problems, in particular the analysis and processing of Photoplethysmography (PPG) signals. In this report, a list of six medical problems that are related to PPG signals and serve as Benchmark Problems is given. Suitable Benchmark datasets and their usage are described also.

Uncertainty quantification with approximate variational learning for wearable photoplethysmography prediction tasks

Photoplethysmography (PPG) signals encode information about relative changes in blood volume that can be used to assess various aspects of cardiac health non-invasively, e.g.\ to detect atrial fibrillation (AF) or predict blood pressure (BP). Deep networks are well-equipped to handle the large quantities of data acquired from wearable measurement devices. However, they lack interpretability and are prone to overfitting, leaving considerable risk for poor performance on unseen data and misdiagnosis. Here, we describe the use of two scalable uncertainty quantification techniques: Monte Carlo Dropout and the recently proposed Improved Variational Online Newton. These techniques are used to assess the trustworthiness of models trained to perform AF classification and BP regression from raw PPG time series. We find that the choice of hyperparameters has a considerable effect on the predictive performance of the models and on the quality and composition of predicted uncertainties. E.g. the stochasticity of the model parameter sampling determines the proportion of the total uncertainty that is aleatoric, and has varying effects on predictive performance and calibration quality dependent on the chosen uncertainty quantification technique and the chosen expression of uncertainty. We find significant discrepancy in the quality of uncertainties over the predicted classes, emphasising the need for a thorough evaluation protocol that assesses local and adaptive calibration. This work suggests that the choice of hyperparameters must be carefully tuned to balance predictive performance and calibration quality, and that the optimal parameterisation may vary depending on the chosen expression of uncertainty.