Presage Arterial Pressure Waveform and Pulse Rate Model Card


THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION, AND PRESAGE'S SDK AND APP, ARE OFFERED FOR GENERAL WELLNESS AND INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. NEITHER HAVE BEEN CLEARED BY THE FDA AND NEITHER MAY BE USED FOR MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT.

1. Model Details

Basic info: Presage vitals by video analysis generates a relative arterial pressure waveform and pulse rate from a video of a subject. This card covers 10.6-second pulse rate (vs EKG) and 60-second waveform analysis (vs BP).

Organization: Presage Technologies

Model date: 2026-04-01

Model version: 3.0.0-rc.11

Model type: A proprietary computer vision and signal processing pipeline extracts a relative arterial pressure waveform and pulse rate from video of a subject. Pulse rate is compared against EKG at 10.6s windows. The waveform is z-score normalized and compared against the Biopac BP reference at 60s windows.

License: The algorithm is currently proprietary, and licenses are granted with predefined agreement.

Contact: Questions can be sent to: support@presagetech.com


2. Intended Use

Model Uses

This model was intended for use in the analysis and non-diagnostic utility of arterial pressure waveform morphology and pulse rate. Requires a stationary device and video of a subject acquired at 25+ fps. Pulse rate range: 40-180 BPM.

Out-of-Scope Uses

As noted above. Not intended for diagnostic blood pressure measurement. Does not provide absolute systolic, diastolic, or MAP values in mmHg. Not an arrhythmia detection or monitoring device.


3. Validation

Reference Standard: Biopac MP160 3-lead ECG (for pulse rate comparison at 10.6s windows) and Biopac continuous blood pressure monitor (for waveform correlation at 60s windows). Waveforms z-score normalized before comparison.

Comparison Methodology: Arterial Pressure Waveform measurements from the camera-based system were compared against time-aligned reference measurements. Ground truth signals were checked for quality using labeled signal annotations; segments with poor signal quality were excluded from analysis.


4. Data Demographics

Category Distribution
Total 119 subjects, 431 videos
Camera (videos) Logitech C920: 118, e-con See3CAM CU27: 115, Samsung S24 Rear 24mm (tripod): 101, Samsung S24 Front 27mm (handheld): 97
Sex (subjects) Female: 63, Male: 56
Age Group (subjects) 18-25: 38, 26-35: 35, 36-45: 18, 46-55: 15, 56-65: 10, 65+: 2
Fitzpatrick (subjects) Type 1: 21, Type 2: 13, Type 3: 13, Type 4: 24, Type 5: 33, Type 6: 15
BMI (subjects) Mean: 27.9, Range: 16.5–54.3, N=119
Lighting (videos) Lamp: 137, Ring Light: 133, Window: 105

Reference standard: Biopac EKG and continuous blood pressure monitor.


5. Data Provenance

Reference Instrumentation: Biopac research-grade physiological sensors: 3-lead ECG (for pulse rate ground truth), continuous blood pressure monitor (for waveform correlation ground truth).

Camera Devices Tested: Samsung S24 Rear 24mm (tripod), Samsung S24 Front 27mm (handheld), e-con See3CAM CU27 (USB), Logitech C920 (tripod).

Average Camera Distance: Samsung S24/e-con/Logitech: 26", Samsung S24 handheld: 10"

Data Handling: All subject data is de-identified. Derived metrics and anonymized identifiers are retained. Data is securely stored with access restricted to trained researchers.


6. Factors

The arterial pressure model requires face detection and high-quality photoplethysmographic signal extraction.


These factors can affect model performance:


Lighting Conditions Tested:


Other factors:


7. Metrics

(at 80% Return Rate, Confidence >= 96)

  1. MAE: 0.39 BPM
  2. RMSE: 0.65 BPM

8. Quantitative Analysis

Computed vs Ground Truth at Confidence Thresholds

Bland-Altman Plot

Confidence Lookup Table

Confidence >= MAE (BPM) RMSE (BPM) Pearson r Return Rate (%) N (samples)
0 1.19 3.52 0.964 100.0 42495
10 1.12 3.32 0.968 99.5 42292
20 1.08 3.19 0.970 99.2 42147
30 1.01 2.92 0.975 98.6 41911
40 0.94 2.74 0.978 97.9 41603
50 0.86 2.48 0.982 96.9 41162
60 0.75 2.17 0.986 95.2 40475
65 0.70 2.00 0.988 94.4 40130
70 0.64 1.83 0.990 93.4 39699
75 0.59 1.65 0.992 92.4 39247
80 0.53 1.28 0.995 91.1 38720
85 0.48 1.06 0.997 89.8 38142
90 0.45 0.86 0.998 87.6 37221
95 0.40 0.70 0.999 83.0 35276
96 0.39 0.65 0.999 80.0 34469

Performance

(at 80% Return Rate, Confidence >= 96)

By Camera Type

Camera Type N (samples) Return Rate (%) MAE (BPM) RMSE (BPM) Pearson r
Samsung S24 Rear 24mm (tripod) 10141 88.2 0.40 0.74 0.998
Samsung S24 Front 27mm (handheld) 2798 67.0 0.47 0.81 0.998
e-con See3CAM CU27 10709 79.7 0.40 0.63 0.999
Logitech C920 10821 80.8 0.36 0.53 0.999

By Fitzpatrick Skin Type

Fitzpatrick N (samples) Return Rate (%) MAE (BPM) RMSE (BPM) Pearson r
Type I 6510 96.2 0.37 0.59 0.999
Type II 4021 87.2 0.38 0.80 0.998
Type III 3967 87.2 0.45 0.93 0.998
Type IV 7739 89.9 0.36 0.53 0.999
Type V 9696 78.0 0.39 0.55 0.999
Type VI 2536 45.9 0.48 0.72 0.999
Fitzpatrick Type VI: Breakdown by Lighting Condition
Ring Light 981 54.6 0.41 0.58 0.997
Window 615 37.6 0.60 0.89 0.999
Lamp 729 39.3 0.46 0.71 0.993

Note: Types I-V are composites across all lighting conditions (Ring Light, Window, Lamp).

By Sex

Sex N (samples) Return Rate (%) MAE (BPM) RMSE (BPM) Pearson r
Male 17405 84.9 0.38 0.70 0.999
Female 17064 77.5 0.41 0.60 0.999

By Age Group

Age Group N (samples) Return Rate (%) MAE (BPM) RMSE (BPM) Pearson r
18-25 11264 82.3 0.46 0.76 0.998
26-35 9532 78.7 0.40 0.64 0.998
36-45 4751 79.2 0.44 0.79 0.999
46-55 5015 89.1 0.25 0.36 1.000
56-65 3436 85.3 0.30 0.42 0.999
65+ 194 29.0 0.47 0.68 0.999

By Lighting Type

Lighting N (samples) Return Rate (%) MAE (BPM) RMSE (BPM) Pearson r
Lamp 10265 78.4 0.41 0.72 0.998
Ring Light 11630 85.0 0.37 0.52 0.999
Window 6989 71.9 0.41 0.65 0.999

Confidence vs Waveform Correlation

Confidence >= Waveform Pearson r Return Rate (%) N (videos)
0 0.615 100.0 382
10 0.615 100.0 382
20 0.615 100.0 382
30 0.616 99.7 381
40 0.620 98.7 377
50 0.625 97.4 372
60 0.627 96.1 367
65 0.633 93.5 357
70 0.636 91.4 349
75 0.637 90.3 345
80 0.639 89.3 341
85 0.645 85.9 328
90 0.650 82.7 316
95 0.660 74.3 284

Waveform Example


9. Fairness & Equity

Bias Assessment Methodology: Performance is stratified by Fitzpatrick skin type (I-VI), sex, camera type, and age group. Per-group metrics and Confidence averages are reported in the Quantitative Analysis tables above.


10. Ethical Considerations

As a remote sensing device, the risks posed to the subjects in the trial are minimal, including the association of each subject with corresponding biometric data. Mitigation of these risks include de-identifying all subject data, including videos, prior to saving it. Additionally, all data is securely stored with access to a select number of trained researchers.

The model is not intended for human life-critical decisions, diagnostics or prognostication.

11. Limitations and Tradeoffs