That’s false. The accuracy isn’t high. I learned from the last conversation I had with EA who had a startup that did this, that the accuracy isn’t high enough to be useful medically.
Interesting data point—there are several papers on this that say it’s a reliable way to measure heart rate (less than 10bpm; see “Heart rate estimation using facial video”). Perhaps this could be brought down much further by throwing more engineering brains, computation and priors at it.
Where do those ≥38°C come from? From what I read the Chinese are using 37.3°C as a cut of for medical decision making with COVID-19.
The first paper you cite for measuring heart rate is of such a low quality that it didn’t pass peer review. They had only 18 subjects, did PCR and did their prediction on their trainings data.
Table8 in Heart rate estimation using facial video suggests that all of the reviewed studies had a mean error that was higher then the 5bpm that the authors call an acceptable error margin in a dynamic scenario.
The first paper that I cite has a very illustrative video and is a seminal paper in this field.
Table 8 in the review paper that you refer to shows a trend of estimation techniques getting better over time. In the latest study from 5 years ago the mean error was down to 6.47.
My broader point is:
the error rate might be brought down even further by better methods, video quality, and priors
this might so that it a valid proxy for fever
This might be very cost-effective on a population level, given the zero marginal cost of software
Interesting data point—there are several papers on this that say it’s a reliable way to measure heart rate (less than 10bpm; see “Heart rate estimation using facial video”). Perhaps this could be brought down much further by throwing more engineering brains, computation and priors at it.
I saw this number in some places—for instance:
https://www.who.int/csr/disease/coronavirus_infections/InterimRevisedSurveillanceRecommendations_nCoVinfection_03Dec12.pdf
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2003100
But perhaps your number is better (source: https://www.who.int/csr/disease/coronavirus_infections/InterimRevisedSurveillanceRecommendations_nCoVinfection_03Dec12.pdf ).
I think there might be non-trivial differences due to time of the day and ethnicity as well.
The first paper you cite for measuring heart rate is of such a low quality that it didn’t pass peer review. They had only 18 subjects, did PCR and did their prediction on their trainings data.
Table8 in Heart rate estimation using facial video suggests that all of the reviewed studies had a mean error that was higher then the 5bpm that the authors call an acceptable error margin in a dynamic scenario.
The first paper that I cite has a very illustrative video and is a seminal paper in this field.
Table 8 in the review paper that you refer to shows a trend of estimation techniques getting better over time. In the latest study from 5 years ago the mean error was down to 6.47.
My broader point is:
the error rate might be brought down even further by better methods, video quality, and priors
this might so that it a valid proxy for fever
This might be very cost-effective on a population level, given the zero marginal cost of software
However, I do agree that this is not trivial.