Legal
Safety & Claims
Last updated: September 18, 2026
Why this page exists
Every statistic on this site carries a †. Every † links here. This page tells you where the number came from, when it was current, and what it does and does not mean. If you find something on our site that is not here, tell us and we will fix it.
What LifeLeaf is
LifeLeaf is a general wellness device. It shows trends and patterns in your blood sugar, your blood pressure and your heart rhythm (HRV). It is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease, and it does not replace any device your clinician prescribed.
How we talk about accuracy
We tested LifeLeaf against the instruments clinicians use: a reference continuous glucose monitor, a fingerstick blood glucose meter, a validated blood-pressure cuff, and — in a study at Mayo Clinic — an arterial line. Full results are on the science page and in the study record.
Two things we want to be clear about. First, LifeLeaf is built to get the story right — whether this meal moved you more than that one, whether the walk brought you back. That is a comparison of you to yourself with the same sensor, and it is what changes what you do tomorrow. Second, absolute values carry more uncertainty than a cleared medical device, and blood-pressure precision narrows as pressure rises. We would rather tell you than have you find out.
Why we show blood pressure as an hourly average. A single cuffless reading varies more than a cuff does. An average over an hour, with a note on which way it is trending, is a more honest picture of what your body is actually doing.
Why we don’t show a single glucose number. A number without context is not something you can act on. We show you where you are in your range, and how much of the day you spent there.
When LifeLeaf is not confident, it says so and holds the number steady rather than inventing a precise-looking one.
The claims register
| Claim | Figure | Source, checked 9 September 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Glucose vs. a reference CGM | 8.5% average difference (MARD) across 10,905 paired readings in 66 people. More than 8 in 10 readings within 15% of the reference. | ATTD 2023, Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 25(S2), A-250 (published journal-supplement abstract) |
| Glucose vs. a fingerstick meter | 10.8% average difference across 1,713 readings in 248 people from 12 countries. | 2025 study, Diabetes (journal-supplement abstract) |
| Blood pressure vs. a validated cuff | Systolic bias −0.02 ± 12.5 mmHg; diastolic bias 0.03 ± 8.4 mmHg, across 1,029 readings in 293 people. | ESH 2023, Journal of Hypertension 41(S3), E111–112 (published journal-supplement abstract) |
| Blood pressure vs. an arterial line | Agreement was clinically meaningful in 87 patients during heart-rhythm procedures; narrows above 140/90 mmHg. | Study conducted at Mayo Clinic |
| Diverse-population testing | 248 people across 12 countries, designed around that diversity. | 2025 study, Diabetes |
| Total paired readings | 70,000+ paired readings collected across 7 clinical sites. | Company-reported, aggregated across all studies |
| Where it has been studied | Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi, AMCR Institute (UC San Diego). | Named study sites |
| Published research | Presented at ADA, ATTD, ESH and the American Heart Association. Published in Diabetes, Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics and the Journal of Hypertension. Three are journal-supplement abstracts; one is a scientific poster. | See the study record at /science/evidence |
| LifeLeaf cost, 2/3/4 years | $547 / $646 / $745, all-in with the required subscription at $9.99/mo or $99/yr. | LifePlus pricing, current at publish |
Institutions
Where we name a clinical institution, we are describing where a study was conducted. No institution named on this site has approved, endorsed, cleared or partnered with LifeLeaf or LifePlus, and we never claim otherwise.
Our research
Our work has been presented at ADA, ATTD, ESH and the American Heart Association, and published in Diabetes, Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics and the Journal of Hypertension. Three of those are journal-supplement abstracts and one is a scientific poster. We say which is which on the study record, because the difference matters. Results are company-reported. We are pursuing independent validation and will publish it when it exists.
Our team
Where we describe a team member’s previous employer or role, we are describing their career. No previous role of any employee or advisor implies endorsement, involvement or any regulatory standing on the part of that organisation.
Comparisons
Where we compare LifeLeaf to another product, we state facts and date them. We never claim to be more accurate than another company’s device. Competitor prices and features change; every comparison carries the date it was checked. If you find one out of date, tell us.
Testimonials, reviews and imagery
Any person who received a device, a payment or anything else of value in exchange for talking about LifeLeaf says so, clearly, in the content itself. Individual results vary. We do not filter reviews by sentiment, we do not solicit selectively from happy customers, and we do not publish reviews or testimonials from people who do not exist.
Some photography and video on this site is licensed stock or AI-generated, used to illustrate. No person appearing in an illustrative image is a LifeLeaf user, and no such image describes anyone’s experience of the product. Where a film uses AI-generated imagery, it says so on screen.
Data visuals show estimated and illustrative values based on real physiological patterns; they are not any individual’s data. Product images show the actual device. We do not use before-and-after body imagery.