Key result
Thermal imaging demonstrated high agreement with standard methods for monitoring heart rate (RMSE 3.53 ± 1.53 bpm) and respiratory rate (RMSE 0.71 ± 0.30 breaths/min) in healthy subjects.
Why the study?
Does thermal imaging accurately measure heart rate and respiratory rate compared to standard contact sensors in healthy subjects?
Population
20 healthy subjects (aged 18-36 and 1 aged 50 years)
Comparison
Thermal imaging using a new algorithm for… vs Photoplethysmography and thoracic…
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Thermal imaging algorithm may enable comfortable non-contact HR/RR monitoring; hypothesis-generating pilot data require prospective validation before clinical use.
Does thermal imaging accurately measure heart rate and respiratory rate compared to standard contact sensors in healthy subjects?
Effect estimate: RMSE 3.53 ± 1.53 bpm (HR phase A), 3.43 ± 1.61 bpm (HR phase B), 0.71 ± 0.30 breaths/min (RR phase A)
Thermal imaging provides a feasible, non-contact method for accurately monitoring heart rate and respiratory rate in healthy subjects.
Pereira et al. (2018) studied Healthy (n=20). Thermal imaging algorithm vs. Photoplethysmography and piezoplethysmography was evaluated on Root-mean-square error (RMSE) for heart rate and respiratory rate (RMSE 3.53 ± 1.53 bpm (HR phase A), 3.43 ± 1.61 bpm (HR phase B), 0.71 ± 0.30 breaths/min (RR phase A)). Thermal imaging demonstrated high agreement with standard methods for monitoring heart rate (RMSE 3.53 ± 1.53 bpm) and respiratory rate (RMSE 0.71 ± 0.30 breaths/min) in healthy subjects.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: