Great. Good morning. My name is Bill Plovanic. I'm a senior analyst here with Canaccord on the MedTech side. Welcome to our 46th annual global growth conference. With us up next, we're going to have CeriBell. Scott Blumberg, CFO, will be presenting, and then we'll sit down for a brief fireside chat. With that, I'll pull Scott up here and have him give you a brief overview of the company. Thanks, Bill. CeriBell is a publicly traded medical technology company that makes brainwave monitoring, EEG, much quicker. We've overlaid that with a number of AI-powered algorithms to help detect serious neurological conditions that affect people in the acute care setting, which is the emergency room and the ICU. EEG, as a technology, has been around for quite a while, over a century, and it was designed specifically for diagnosis of patients with epilepsy in the outpatient setting. It's now been applied to the inpatient setting, the ICU and the ED, where the most important thing for a patient to have a good outcome is the speed of diagnosis and treatment, and it's not designed for speed. It has a number of inherent bottlenecks in the technology, including having large equipment that needs to be wheeled around the hospital and relying on specially trained EEG technicians and neurologists, which are in short supply and not readily available. We have changed that equation with our technology. We have developed a technology that's very easy to be set up. It can be set up in about five minutes by any trained medical professional, most often nurses. Then we've overlaid that with, as I mentioned, detection algorithms, which allow the bedside clinicians to understand what's going on with the patient in real time. Technology's very well- studied. We've got over 50 publications, over 150 publications and abstracts. The data strongly supports that we provide better medicine. The clinicians feel better about their treatment decisions. They overuse medication less. We have a lower length of stay. We reduce transfers, and that's evident in the fact that we're now in 712 hospitals in the U.S. and growing. That represents the first horizon of our vision, which is specifically targeting seizure. We want to become the standard of care for seizure detection in the acute care setting. As we moved into 2026, we're now pursuing the second phase of our vision in parallel, which is to develop a comprehensive brain monitor and become a vital sign for the acute care setting. We've done that by overlaying new disease state detection algorithms onto the same platform. Also announced in our earnings call Monday, we're rolling out a new hardware platform, which works for all of seizure, delirium, and then eventually stroke when we roll that out. Delirium is a very prevalent condition affecting the same patient population, as well as additional patients in the ICU. We received clearance for that late last year, are currently undergoing a pilot with a small number of studies and announced an intention to launch that product later this year. We received, about two weeks ago, favorable reimbursement from CMS for a new technology add-on payment, which adds over $2,000 per eligible patient. In stroke, we've received a FDA breakthrough designation on that technology. It's still in development, but we're making steady progress. We're still in the early innings of penetration within our core market. We've got about a $2 billion U.S. TAM for the adult seizure detection product, and we're roughly 4% into that and growing. We are continually growing our TAM, first adding younger patients early this year with neonates and pediatrics, and now delirium, bringing our U.S. TAM up to over $3.5 billion, and that doesn't include future indications as well as OUS. I will turn it over to Bill. Great. Move to the fireside chat. Before we do that, on the last conference call, you talked about some new products that are coming to market. Do we have any pictures of those? We don't, no. Okay. No, we're going to roll those out. See if we can do a show and tell real quick. I'm happy to talk through them, y eah. Okay. Thanks for joining me for this. Let's get into the questions here. CeriBell is a company that IPO'd about two years ago. You've continually beat and raised. The performance has been fantastic. Yet it doesn't seem like the markets have rewarded you significantly for that. I think we're right around somewhere near where the IPO price was. I think the feedback we've gotten is it's been a solid beat and raise story. I think some of the investors want to see bigger beats, but I don't think that's the business. It's a very consistent business. Some of the things that have been talked about have been the new accounts, and revenue drivers and just you had a big bolus to the sales force a while back. Those are becoming more productive now. How should we think about the productivity of those reps? I think some of us out there were expecting more of a hockey stick as they came on board. It doesn't seem like they're getting that. Have they been focused more on utilization versus accounts, o r go back to the original question, would we ever expect an acceleration in the number of new accounts, or is the strategy just keep it a solid number and keep driving the utilization? Yeah, let me first clarify the commercial model. We've got basically two distinct sales orgs. We've got the territory manager, the account acquisition arm, and they're focused on acquiring new customers. That's, I think, what you referred to on the acceleration side. Then separate from that, we've got the account management function, which is clinical account managers, and they singularly focus on utilization. As far as the ramp for the territory managers go, we have about six or seven years of history showing with pretty high confidence how these folks ramp. It takes about a year for a territory manager to launch their first account, and the math there is roughly three months to bring on, train, onboard the rep. Roughly six months from first approach to purchase order. Of course, that varies. Then from purchase order to launch, roughly three months. It takes about a year for a rep to become productive, and then we see increasing productivity over the second year, and then they reach max productivity, which is not a cap, it's a max of the rate of adds by year two. So, we expanded our territory manager post-IPO from roughly 35 - 55, and it took us about a year to do that. So if you think about that one year hiring cycle as kind of like a ship moving forward. The front half of the ship has now crossed into the one year, some productivity category. The back half is not there yet. As we move further into the year, more of them hit the one year, and then the first of them hit the two-year mark. No, I don't think the strategy is to continue to close high 20s, low 30s accounts a quarter. We have increased our rate of acquisition from mid-20s to low 30s, but I would expect over time that continues to go up. Excellent. Rarely do we see as a company gets deeper into the market and you are adding accounts, so you are kind of filling the top of the bucket, but at the same time, your utilization is going up. It has gone up probably 50% in the past four years or something. the CeriBell EEG Headband use per day, per month, per quarter, whatever way you want to look at it. That has been pretty impressive, and I think we even saw the top-line growth accelerated this quarter, and it was driven off of that. How should we think about the level of penetration you have in the accounts you are in today? Is this something that we could see utilization continue going up, or is this something where at some point that needs to level off and then it becomes just adding more customers to the mix? I think we have got quite a bit of runway left on the utilization front. We are doing a market development here. The vast majority of cases where our technology is used is not replacing something that is done, it is replacing something that is not done. In many cases, they are not using EEG because they do not have access to it. So when we look at the opportunity within our hospital, we do not have a precise data set to pull from. We look at the claims data for associated conditions that should be monitored. I think more compellingly, we look at the practices we see in our best hospitals and compare them to our average hospitals when you control for opportunity, which is the number of patients flowing through the hospital, and we use bed size as a proxy for that. What we see is, regardless of size of hospital, small, medium, large, academic, our top 10% or so of hospitals do roughly 3x the volume of hospitals of similar size on average. So we think that there is plenty of room to try to elevate the majority of our hospitals up to where those best hospitals are, and that has been the strategy. The strategy has been train more doctors, expand to more departments, integrate within treatment protocols to reinforce habit. As we think about the Department of Veterans Affairs opportunity and then the CeriBell NeoNate and peds, kind of look at them separately, but I think those are things that were piloted early and were just starting to get into full market launch. Is the process for adoption in those sites different than it is in your traditional customer base? How should we think about a cadence of those coming on? Is that just incremental above and beyond, or is it part of the new account adds and it is just a different segment? I think the answer on CeriBell NeoNate and pediatric is it's a little early to tell. We launched that a couple of quarters ago, and because we're expanding to other departments, it's a multi-month sales process to activate an account. We're just starting to see the first of those come on. I don't know that we have a clear answer on the CeriBell NeoNate side and pediatric side yet. On the VA side, we are seeing high-quality usage. I think there's a little bit of headwinds and tailwinds compared to other accounts. The headwind is for those VAs where we got the purchase top-down, you don't always have the same level of ground-level support. You got to go work to build that. If you don't do a good job, it inhibits usage. The tailwind is there's a huge amount of enthusiasm and the cost of a transfer VA, especially outside of the system, is very, very high. There's a big call to action to use our technology. I think one of the other incremental adds commercially was the SAMs or the System Account Managers. We talked about that on the conference call the other day a bit. Help us understand, when would you expect that, b ecause that's a bigger system type of sell? Is that like a year, two year, three year, we really get to see the clear benefits of that? What are the KPIs you're looking for internally? How quickly should we expect to see them then transform into a revenue number? The strategic account managers are focused on regional health systems. They're not focused on the top 10 or so. We've got a separate function that's been around longer, a very small function working on that. The reason we started that function is because we found time and time again, the best reps, the ones who are kind of multiple standard deviations away from the average in terms of productivity, all had a pretty consistent organic playbook, which is, I'm going to get an account, I'm going to prove out the CeriBell value within that hospital, and then I'm going to go to administration of that small regional health system and say, look what we did here. How about these other six, seven in your system? That's worked quite well, and so we're trying to replicate that. What we're seeing right now and what we've pointed to is our conviction that it's going to work well other than the proof point of reps doing it historically is that we built up this really nice pipeline of multi-hospital deals, which we typically don't do. We typically see more onesie-twosies, and we've built up this pipeline of four to 10 hospital opportunities. Those are progressing. I think there's some argument that if you're aiming bigger, it might move a little slower. That's the one thing we don't know. I think as far as having conviction that will translate into more purchase orders and then eventually more ads per quarter, I think we're pretty confident in that. I think you're likely to see that in 2027, probably not in the next quarter or two. If you're going after a multi-unit system, is that going to negatively impact pricing? Because typically if they're like, well, we're signing up six facilities. We want a 10%-20% discount because we're going to have all this volume. Do you think that that'll be a change in your pricing or any impact there? I think there's always discussions around enterprise pricing and we've got 89% gross margins. I think we have some latitude to work there. If a system's going to give us 20 hospitals, I think that's a discussion we'll have. Looking at the size of the sales force, the company before you talked about, oh, w e doubled the sales force. You did not see a negative impact. You've actually seen the businesses continue to be very consistent. What is the ideal scale? Right now you're 55 reps, NFL city kind of strategy, right? MSAs. Is this one where you're not going to need a ton of reps because you want to keep the cadence and new accounts at a level you can keep training o r is this something like we see some companies scale up to 100, 200 reps to kind of get into every nook and cranny? On the account acquisition side, we've got a lot more optionality, I think, than most folks, and that's grounded in the model in which when a territory manager acquires a customer after launch, they hand it off entirely. There's no capacity limits. The calculation on the account acquisition side is how many concurrent sales processes you want to run, and that's pretty simple math, right? You run more processes, you get more deals, it costs you more. There's also the human element around change management within the sales org that you always need to deal with. We haven't made a decision yet on when we expand. I don't think it's going to be a world where we have 100 to 200 territory managers. The clinical account management side's a little different. They do have ongoing account management responsibilities, so I would expect that side of the house to expand roughly in line with the rate of expansion of the account base. Perfect. One of the questions we get, I'm going to switch into delirium, is you went into pilot launch for delirium, and I got this question on Q2 was, as you launch delirium, is it going to be an incremental revenue driver for you, or is this a we're first to market, this is a land grab, we got the best technology, we've created the market, we're going to add another measurement on there with delirium, and it just embeds you more as the market leader and challenging to unseat you as you continue to kind of pick up all those accounts. What's the strategy? It's a revenue driver. The question which we're answering in real-time here as we prepare for launch is that revenue driver an expectation that it's going to drive more volume, or is it something we're going to charge specifically for? In either case, we think that the customers may need more recorders, which comes with an incremental cost. But the decision, which is a complex one, is do you ask for money up front, which slows down the acquisition process, slows down the timing of people turning on in a world where we've got a limited duration of this NTAP, or do we make it more accessible such that we can turn folks on faster, but we have very high conviction that's going to result in increases in usage. The early pilot data has, again, small sample size, but it's showing increases in usage pretty much across the board. I think we're continuing to pay attention. Not to put words in your mouth, but more than likely not incrementally charge for it, but you'll get the benefit by capturing more accounts and more usage because it has more capabilities. Is that fair? Yeah, I think that's one. I wouldn't say that's necessarily our declared strategy yet, but I think that there's some appeal to that. Okay. Then off of delirium, how impactful do you think the incremental NTAP reimbursement at $2,200 is? Because I know we've had some questions regarding for status epilepticus, that reimbursement's rolling off, and then we're basically getting delirium rolling on. It didn't seem like that was a benefit on the status epilepticus side to get the incremental reimbursement, but this is exponentially more. So how are you thinking about it internally as an impact to the business? I view it mostly as an objection handler more than a push to the hospitals. The NTAP applies to a relatively narrow subset of patients. It is patients who are Medicare. Negative margin means the hospital is losing money on them. It really is helpful in getting into a new hospital when we say, hey, there is an insurance policy here for you. If you use this and you are upside down with the patient, this will make up for it. Does it drive usage, that is a little hard to measure, but I think it will help certainly allow us to get into hospitals with delirium much quicker. That answer is almost similar in the status epilepticus for the incremental reimbursement. This is a question we still get is, hey, when that goes away? Because most companies, when NTAP goes away, that can have a pretty big impact. Yeah. We are all trained to say, uh-oh, reimbursement is changing. That is not good. We are losing that incremental amount. That is why I want to come back on status epilepticus. When that goes away, has it been a tailwind? Do you think it will be a headwind? Again, I think it was helpful in getting into hospitals. The health economics of the technology really stands on its own in terms of reduction of length of stay, reduction in transfer, reduction in unnecessary medication. We prove that out after we get into the hospital. Our thought is that, no, it will not be an adverse impact. You have got delirium turning on at the exact same time that status turns off. There are some patient populations where it is totally distinct, it is one or the other. There is also a big overlap. Okay. On the conference call, you talked about you've got a new form factor coming, and then some new capabilities. I think you're adding video, et cetera, to this. Give us a brief overview of the new product, specifically what you're adding in and why. Was that feedback from the doctors? What objections do you think that's going to address? Yeah. There's two new disposables and a new recorder platform. The recorder platform is a bit larger. It looks cooler, that's for sure. It has some distinct clinical value features. It has a built-in camera. The bigger screen actually is practically useful, because as you're measuring multiple disease states at once, it's helpful to be able to see them side by side. It integrates with other technologies like EKG, which allows for it to become a more comprehensive monitor that can sit at the bedside, and it plugs in and records at the same time. Our current recorder is battery operated only and has to be plugged separately from use, which allows for continuous usage. The benefits of that are furthering some of the feedback we've gotten on the seizure side. In particular, there's neurologists. Bedside doesn't really generally care that much, but neurologists like to have the video. Long-term monitoring is necessary in some patients, which is enabled by the longer duration recording. Perhaps more importantly, it enables this multifunctional use for delirium, and eventually LVO stroke. Delirium, we will launch delirium on the current product, and it works just fine, but it's a better user experience with the new technology, we think. On the disposable side, there's two new disposables. One is an add-on to our current disposable. So it basically covers the parasagittal, the top of the head here. It's not a full montage device, it's an add-on. What we found and believe is in the vast majority of cases, our technology, which is built for rapid measurement, is the right one, but there are some small number of cases where you do need full montage. So you basically can convert our headband to full montage, and you don't need to put in the labor and time to do a much more complex set, not much, but a more complex setup on the majority of patients that don't need it, but you can have it when you need it. So that's one of the two form factors. The other is a new headband, which looks similar to ours. It's softer, and it is set up for multi-day or potentially longer monitoring. Excellent. I am going to ask one more question on litigation, then I am going to open up a little. You have the Natus litigation ongoing. I think from our understanding, it is we are waiting for the ITC to rule, then we will go back and get a date back on the calendar to move forward with this. So timing of just getting this all wrapped up. Are you talking about the district court case in terms of we will wait when. Right now we are running the ITC case. The preliminary decision is scheduled for November, then the final decision would be March-ish of 2027. Based on the outcomes of that, we also have a case with the district court in Delaware that stayed. Based on the outcomes of that would then turn back on the timing on that and how we proceed with that, I think depends on what we learn from the November ruling. Yeah. Then actually, I am going to ask one more question. One of the questions we get is going back to financials is, because we have the litigation baked in there, we have the doubling the sales force and everything, we have not really seen the operating leverage. When do we really get to start to see the operating leverage in the business model? Yeah. We have held our adjusted EBITDA relatively consistent for basically every quarter since we have been public. Adjusted takes out the litigation. From the investment standpoint, the more pure sales investment, we have made the decision, given the opportunity we have in front of us, that we continue to invest in the sales org. That is not to deliver what we are delivering. That is to deliver what we want to deliver in 2028, 2029, et cetera, given the sales ramp, given the new products we are launching. We pay very close attention to the implications of our decisions on the ability to control our own destiny and achieve profitability with cash on hand. We do not pay as much attention to the time. We want to maximize the impact on our market and maximize the long-term revenue. We want to do that in a responsible way, but we don't want to sacrifice growth just to show leverage. Got you. Well, first mover advantage. Take it while you can get it. I'm going to open it up, see if there's any questions from the audience. They're going to keep me on the spot here. Is there anything you'd like to leave the audience with, one or two takeaways or three key things that we should think about? I think we're really excited. We've really spent the last two years building a number of drivers, and they're all really coalescing in the next two to six quarters. We've got the sales force, which is maturing, as we talked about, and become more and more mature throughout the next year. We've got NeoNate, which we just launched a couple of quarters ago and will start to turn on in 2027. We've got delirium that we're launching at the end of this year, and then we've got the VA strategy, which we didn't talk much about, but is something we're still very optimistic about, and that's not even including stroke. All those things really come to head in the next many quarters. We're really excited for the future ahead. Excellent. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it.