Uncertainty quantification with approximate variational learning for wearable photoplethysmography prediction tasks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.11412v1
• Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 16:21:45 GMT
• Title: Uncertainty quantification with approximate variational learning for wearable photoplethysmography prediction tasks
• Authors: Ciaran Bench, Vivek Desai, Mohammad Moulaeifard, Nils Strodthoff, Philip Aston, Andrew Thompson,
• Abstract summary: Photoplethysmography signals encode information about relative changes in blood volume.<n>Deep networks are well-equipped to handle the large quantities of data acquired from wearable measurement devices.
• Score: 0.8312466807725922
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• Hesitation is defeat? Connecting Linguistic and Predictive Uncertainty [2.8186733524862158]
  This paper investigates the relationship between predictive uncertainty and human/linguistic uncertainty, as estimated from free-text reports labelled by rule-based labellers.<n>The results demonstrate good model performance, but also a modest correlation between predictive and linguistic uncertainty, highlighting the challenges in aligning machine uncertainty with human interpretation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-06T18:34:37Z)
• Uncertainty Weighted Gradients for Model Calibration [22.39558434131574]
  Deep networks often produce over-confident or under-confident predictions, leading to miscalibration.<n>We propose a unified loss framework for focal loss and its variants, where we mainly attribute their superiority in model calibration to the loss weighting factor.<n>Our method achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-26T04:16:05Z)
• Achieving Well-Informed Decision-Making in Drug Discovery: A Comprehensive Calibration Study using Neural Network-Based Structure-Activity Models [4.619907534483781]
  computational models that predict drug-target interactions are valuable tools to accelerate the development of new therapeutic agents. However, such models can be poorly calibrated, which results in unreliable uncertainty estimates. We show that combining post hoc calibration method with well-performing uncertainty quantification approaches can boost model accuracy and calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-19T10:29:00Z)
• Quantifying predictive uncertainty of aphasia severity in stroke patients with sparse heteroscedastic Bayesian high-dimensional regression [47.1405366895538]
  Sparse linear regression methods for high-dimensional data commonly assume that residuals have constant variance, which can be violated in practice. This paper proposes estimating high-dimensional heteroscedastic linear regression models using a heteroscedastic partitioned empirical Bayes Expectation Conditional Maximization algorithm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-15T22:06:29Z)
• Towards Reliable Medical Image Segmentation by utilizing Evidential Calibrated Uncertainty [52.03490691733464]
  We introduce DEviS, an easily implementable foundational model that seamlessly integrates into various medical image segmentation networks. By leveraging subjective logic theory, we explicitly model probability and uncertainty for the problem of medical image segmentation. DeviS incorporates an uncertainty-aware filtering module, which utilizes the metric of uncertainty-calibrated error to filter reliable data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-01T05:02:46Z)
• Improving Trustworthiness of AI Disease Severity Rating in Medical Imaging with Ordinal Conformal Prediction Sets [0.7734726150561088]
  A lack of statistically rigorous uncertainty quantification is a significant factor undermining trust in AI results. Recent developments in distribution-free uncertainty quantification present practical solutions for these issues. We demonstrate a technique for forming ordinal prediction sets that are guaranteed to contain the correct stenosis severity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-05T18:01:20Z)
• Dense Uncertainty Estimation [62.23555922631451]
  In this paper, we investigate neural networks and uncertainty estimation techniques to achieve both accurate deterministic prediction and reliable uncertainty estimation. We work on two types of uncertainty estimations solutions, namely ensemble based methods and generative model based methods, and explain their pros and cons while using them in fully/semi/weakly-supervised framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-13T01:23:48Z)
• When in Doubt: Neural Non-Parametric Uncertainty Quantification for Epidemic Forecasting [70.54920804222031]
  Most existing forecasting models disregard uncertainty quantification, resulting in mis-calibrated predictions. Recent works in deep neural models for uncertainty-aware time-series forecasting also have several limitations. We model the forecasting task as a probabilistic generative process and propose a functional neural process model called EPIFNP.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-07T18:31:47Z)
• Increasing the efficiency of randomized trial estimates via linear adjustment for a prognostic score [59.75318183140857]
  Estimating causal effects from randomized experiments is central to clinical research. Most methods for historical borrowing achieve reductions in variance by sacrificing strict type-I error rate control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-17T21:10:10Z)
• Improving model calibration with accuracy versus uncertainty optimization [17.056768055368384]
  A well-calibrated model should be accurate when it is certain about its prediction and indicate high uncertainty when it is likely to be inaccurate. We propose an optimization method that leverages the relationship between accuracy and uncertainty as an anchor for uncertainty calibration. We demonstrate our approach with mean-field variational inference and compare with state-of-the-art methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-14T20:19:21Z)
• Learning to Predict Error for MRI Reconstruction [67.76632988696943]
  We demonstrate that predictive uncertainty estimated by the current methods does not highly correlate with prediction error. We propose a novel method that estimates the target labels and magnitude of the prediction error in two steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-13T15:55:32Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.