
The Watch Is Smart, but It Can’t Replace Your Doctor - known
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/26/upshot/apple-watch-atrial-fibrillation.html
======
wilg
This is, of course, a silly article.

Firstly, it seems to predate or not include the Apple Watch models (series 4
and 5) that have ECGs. The article mentions that they got a notification about
irregular heartbeat and then got mailed ECG test kits, with a 20% return rate.

The new watches just perform an ECG directly, which I imagine has a much
higher conversion rate.

It's nice to see a recap of this afib study, but the angle of the article
seems pretty unhelpful.

The title claims the watch "Can’t Replace Your Doctor" which is as far as I
know not something anyone rational claims or believes. So it's not surprising
to learn that it cannot replace your doctor.

Also the subhead is completely false: "Apple has been advertising its watch’s
ability to detect atrial fibrillation. The reality doesn’t quite live up to
the promise". It, as the article discusses at length, in fact _does_ detect
atrial fibrillation. In 153 people in the study! Sounds great! Advertising
confirmed correct!

I'm not sure what I'm intended to take away from the article. The Apple Watch
detects afib as advertised? And that could possibly be Actually Bad based on
some handwavey mention of "misdiagnosis" (the watch does not diagnose you,
your doctor does).

Am I missing something interesting here?

------
known
[http://archive.vn/wip/QiJGY](http://archive.vn/wip/QiJGY)

~~~
Redoubts
While you may have your own reasons for preferring web archive for this,
friendly reminder that your local library (and the SFPL in particular) may
give you free access to national papers.

~~~
wilg
Certainly convenient if you're at the library!

~~~
Redoubts
You can access their services from home...

~~~
wilg
Cool, that wasn't clear from your comment...

Here's how it works:
[https://sfpl.libanswers.com/faq/166904](https://sfpl.libanswers.com/faq/166904)

