Background Measuring vital signs plays a key role in both patient care and wellness, but can be challenging outside of medical settings due to the lack of specialized equipment. Methods In this study, we prospectively evaluated smartphone camera-based techniques for measuring heart rate (HR) and respiratory rate (RR) for consumer wellness use. HR was measured by placing the finger over the rear-facing camera, while RR was measured via a video of the participants sitting still in front of the front-facing camera. Results In the HR study of 95 participants (with a protocol that included both measurements at rest and post exercise), the mean absolute percent error (MAPE) ± standard deviation of the measurement was 1.6% ± 4.3%, which was significantly lower than the pre-specified goal of 5%. No significant differences in the MAPE were present across colorimeter-measured skin-tone subgroups: 1.8% ± 4.5% for very light to intermediate, 1.3% ± 3.3% for tan and brown, and 1.8% ± 4.9% for dark. In the RR study of 50 participants, the mean absolute error (MAE) was 0.78 ± 0.61 breaths/min, which was significantly lower than the pre-specified goal of 3 breaths/min. The MAE was low in both healthy participants (0.70 ± 0.67 breaths/min), and participants with chronic respiratory conditions (0.80 ± 0.60 breaths/min). Conclusions These results validate the accuracy of our smartphone camera-based techniques to measure HR and RR across a range of pre-defined subgroups.

Measuring vital signs plays a key role in both patient care and wellness, but can be challenging outside of medical settings due to the lack of specialized equipment. In this study, we prospectively evaluated smartphone camera-based techniques for measuring heart rate (HR) and respiratory rate (RR) for consumer wellness use. HR was measured by placing the finger over the rear-facing camera, while RR was measured via a video of the participants sitting still in front of the front-facing camera. In the HR study of 95 participants (with a protocol that included both measurements at rest and post exercise), the mean absolute percent error (MAPE) ± standard deviation of the measurement was 1.6% ± 4.3%, which was significantly lower than the pre-specified goal of 5%. No significant differences in the MAPE were present across colorimeter-measured skin-tone subgroups: 1.8% ± 4.5% for very light to intermediate, 1.3% ± 3.3% for tan and brown, and 1.8% ± 4.9% for dark. In the RR study of 50 participants, the mean absolute error (MAE) was 0.78 ± 0.61 breaths/min, which was significantly lower than the pre-specified goal of 3 breath/min. The MAE was low in both healthy participants (0.70 ± 0.67 breaths/min), and participants with chronic respiratory conditions (0.80 ± 0.60 breaths/min). These results validate the accuracy of our smartphone camera-based techniques to measure HR and RR across a range of pre-defined subgroups.

Measuring vital signs plays a key role in both patient care and wellness, but can be challenging outside of medical settings due to the lack of specialized equipment. In this study, we prospectively evaluated smartphone camera-based techniques for measuring heart rate (HR) and respiratory rate (RR) for consumer wellness use. HR was measured by placing the finger over the rear-facing camera, while RR was measured via a video of the participants sitting still in front of the front-facing camera. In the HR study of 95 participants (with a protocol that included both measurements at rest and post exercise), the mean absolute percent error (MAPE) ± standard deviation of the measurement was 1.6% ± 4.3%, which was significantly lower than the pre-specified goal of 5%. No significant differences in the MAPE were present across colorimeter-measured skin-tone subgroups: 1.8% ± 4.5% for very light to intermediate, 1.3% ± 3.3% for tan and brown, and 1.8% ± 4.9% for dark. In the RR study of 50 participants, the mean absolute error (MAE) was 0.78 ± 0.61 breaths/min, which was significantly lower than the pre-specified goal of 3 breath/min. The MAE was low in both healthy participants (0.70 ± 0.67 breaths/min), and participants with chronic respiratory conditions (0.80 ± 0.60 breaths/min). Our results validate that smartphone camera-based techniques can accurately measure HR and RR across a range of pre-defined subgroups.