Cross-Subject Domain Adaptation for Generalizable Photoplethysmography-Based Health Monitoring

Authors

  • Marek Herrera Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA. Author
  • Paul M. Fleming Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA. Author

Keywords:

photoplethysmography, cross-subject domain adaptation, generalizable health monitoring, wearable systems, algorithmic fairness, regulatory governance

Abstract

Photoplethysmography has become a widely used optical sensing technique for continuous cardiovascular and respiratory monitoring in wearable devices. Despite its practical advantages, the translation of photoplethysmographic sensing into reliable population-scale health monitoring remains constrained by substantial cross-subject variability arising from skin properties, tissue perfusion, sensor placement, motion artifacts, ambient lighting, and device-specific characteristics. Although deep learning models trained on large datasets can improve average estimation accuracy, their performance often degrades when deployed on unseen subjects because the underlying data distribution shifts across anatomical, demographic, and environmental contexts. This article examines cross-subject domain adaptation as a systems-level strategy for building generalizable photoplethysmography-based health monitoring. The discussion moves beyond narrow algorithmic formulations and considers domain adaptation within a broader sociotechnical infrastructure that includes data governance, sensor architecture, deployment logistics, fairness, regulatory accountability, and sustainability. The paper analyzes structural trade-offs among centralized training, on-device adaptation, federated learning, and hybrid inference arrangements. It further explores how unlabeled target-domain data, adversarial alignment, contrastive pretraining, attention mechanisms, and quality-aware signal processing can be integrated into a robust monitoring pipeline. The central argument is that generalizability is not merely a statistical property of a model but an emergent outcome of system design, data curation, institutional oversight, and continuous evaluation. This perspective has important implications for clinical validation, health equity, and the responsible scaling of wearable diagnostics beyond controlled laboratory settings.

References

1. Allen, J. (2007). Photoplethysmography and its application in clinical physiological measurement. Physiological Measurement, 28(3), R1–R39. https://doi.org/10.1088/0967-3334/28/3/R01

2. Elgendi, M. (2012). On the analysis of fingertip photoplethysmogram signals. Current Cardiology Reviews, 8(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.2174/157340312801215782

3. Biswas, D., Simões-Capela, N., Van Hoof, C., & Van Helleputte, N. (2019). Heart rate estimation from wrist-worn PPG signals in the presence of motion artifacts: A review. IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, 12, 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1109/RBME.2018.2877953

4. Zhang, Z., Pi, Z., & Liu, B. (2015). TROIKA: A general framework for heart rate monitoring using wrist-type photoplethysmographic signals during intensive physical exercise. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 62(2), 522–531. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2014.2359372

5. Temko, A. (2017). Accurate heart rate monitoring during physical exercises using PPG. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 64(9), 2016–2024. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2017.2675985

6. Reiss, A., Indlekofer, I., Schmidt, P., & Van Laerhoven, K. (2019). Deep PPG: Large-scale heart rate estimation with convolutional neural networks. Sensors, 19(14), 3079. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19143079

7. Ganin, Y., Ustinova, E., Ajakan, H., Germain, P., Larochelle, H., Laviolette, F., Marchand, M., & Lempitsky, V. (2016). Domain-adversarial training of neural networks. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 17(1), 1–35.

8. Tzeng, E., Hoffman, J., Saenko, K., & Darrell, T. (2017). Adversarial discriminative domain adaptation. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 7167–7176. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2017.429

9. Long, M., Cao, Y., Wang, J., & Jordan, M. I. (2015). Learning transferable features with deep adaptation networks. Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, 97–105.

10. Zheng, X., Hu, S., Dwyer, V., Barrett, L., & Derakhshani, M. (2026). Joint attention mechanism learning to facilitate opto-physiological monitoring during physical activity. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 113, 108949.

11. Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., & Courville, A. (2016). Deep learning. MIT Press.

12. Ben-David, S., Blitzer, J., Crammer, K., Kulesza, A., Pereira, F., & Vaughan, J. W. (2010). A theory of learning from different domains. Machine Learning, 79(1–2), 151–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-009-5152-4

13. Wang, Z., Bovik, A. C., Sheikh, H. R., & Simoncelli, E. P. (2004). Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 13(4), 600–612. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2003.819861

14. Pan, S. J., & Yang, Q. (2010). A survey on transfer learning. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 22(10), 1345–1359. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2009.191

15. Mohri, M., Rostamizadeh, A., & Talwalkar, A. (2018). Foundations of machine learning (2nd ed.). MIT Press.

16. Chen, T., Kornblith, S., Norouzi, M., & Hinton, G. (2020). A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, 1597–1607.

17. Sun, B., Feng, J., & Saenko, K. (2016). Return of frustratingly easy domain adaptation. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v30i1.10306

18. Raghu, M., Zhang, C., Kleinberg, J., & Bengio, S. (2019). Transfusion: Understanding transfer learning for medical imaging. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32.

19. Fine, J., Branan, K. L., Rodriguez, A. J., Boonya-Ananta, T., Ajmal, Ramella-Roman, J. C., McShane, M. J., & Coté, G. L. (2021). Sources of inaccuracy in photoplethysmography for continuous cardiovascular monitoring. Biosensors, 11(4), 126. https://doi.org/10.3390/bios11040126

20. Bickler, P. E., Feiner, J. R., & Rollins, M. D. (2013). Factors affecting the performance of conventional pulse oximetry. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 117(4), 813–820. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182a1c1f0

Downloads

Published

2026-07-12

How to Cite

Cross-Subject Domain Adaptation for Generalizable Photoplethysmography-Based Health Monitoring. (2026). Journal of Advanced Artificial Intelligence Research, 5(1). https://www.jaair.org/index.php/home/article/view/225