Key result
Non-contact respiratory rate device matches nurse visual measurements with ~0.033 breaths per minute bias.
Why the study?
Respiratory rate is critical for rapid response systems, but existing measurement methods have limitations, prompting the development of a simple, affordable, portable, non-contact, automatic device.
Does a non-contact respiratory rate measurement device using a webcam and infrared LEDs accurately measure respiratory rate compared to visual observation?
Does a non-contact respiratory rate measurement device using a webcam and infrared LEDs accurately measure respiratory rate compared to visual observation?
Mean Difference: 0.033 (95% CI -0.252–0.319)
A novel, affordable, non-contact respiratory rate measurement device using a webcam and infrared LEDs demonstrated high accuracy compared to visual observation in pilot simulator and volunteer experiments.
May support non-contact monitoring development; leaves open clinical adoption without patient validation.
Respiratory rate is a critical parameter for activating rapid response systems. Given the limitations of existing respiratory rate measurement methods, we aimed to develop a simple, affordable, portable, non-contact, and automatic measurement device using commercially available optical components. We further verified its measurement accuracy through experiments involving a simulator and a volunteer. The proposed system consisted of a webcam with 10 infrared light-emitting diodes, a webcam arm stand, and a laptop. The system employed the law of light attenuation to assess changes in the distance between the camera and the body surface and then extracted depth information from two-dimensional images. In the simulator experiments, the Bland–Altman analysis revealed a bias of 0.167 between simulator settings and automatic system measurements, and 0.200 between simulator settings and visual measurements by a nurse. In the volunteer experiment, the bias between automatic system measurements and visual measurements by a nurse was 0.033. The results were satisfactory. The proposed method exhibits sufficient measurement accuracy for practical use in an individual with a stable respiratory state. Collectively, our findings suggest that the device could reduce observational burden on nurses and significantly improve recording rate of respiratory parameters.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kajiwara et al. (2025) studied Healthy (n=1). Non-contact respiratory rate measurement device vs. Visual measurement by a nurse was evaluated on Bias between automatic system measurements and visual measurements (Bias 0.033, 95% CI -0.252-0.319). The non-contact respiratory rate measurement device demonstrated high accuracy, with a bias of 0.033 breaths per minute compared to visual measurements by a nurse in a healthy volunteer.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: