I was recently stupefied to discover Nokia Steel  and how virtually unknown it is to the general public, my former self included. It comes with great design, no bullshit digital screen, the usual tracking features, and most importantly seems like it's a return to form for Nokia, considering their country's outstanding design heritage.
edit: lol I forgot to mention the best part. THE BATTERY LASTS EIGHT MONTHS
I wear my apple watch 2 all day, sleep in it, and charge it in the time I'm getting ready in the morning. that's all it needs and it never runs out of battery.
I too had a Pebble Time and while that lasted seemingly forever, I'm very very happy with the Series 3's battery life and charge time.
I'm using AutoSleep, but it seems to really overestimate the time I'm actually asleep, and as far as I can tell it doesn't take into account tossing/turning during the night (either that, or I'm getting way better sleep than I think I'm getting).
And I can leave my phone in my pocket and still not miss anything important. Improved focus.
And I don't have to put my phone under my freaking pillow to get my alarm to go off at the right time.
And I also have a night-light on my wrist, which is super useful when I gotta get up and take a pee or something.
Only need to take it off when I wake up for about half an hour. While I shower and what not. Works for me.
>>with my Apple Watch I am more physically fit.
>>And I can leave my phone in my pocket and still not miss anything important. Improved focus.
>>And I don't have to put my phone under my freaking pillow to get my alarm to go off at the right time.
>>And I also have a night-light on my wrist, which is super useful when I gotta get up and take a pee or something.
>>Only need to take it off when I wake up for about half an hour. While I shower and what not. Works for me.
I'm sure there are good reasons to purchase an Apple Watch specifically, but I believe the ones listed above are true for most smartwatches
The only smartwatch that was ever a good watch, at least that I've seen, was the Pebble. The one-week battery and always-on sunlight-readable screen are the two giant features that make it a comfortable object. It's very disappointing that nobody's making anything like that anymore.
The Nokia Steel looks like a fantastic watch, although not much of a smartwatch. I'd still rather have one than an Apple watch.
First, the Apple Watch easily lasts at least two days with headroom. Second, most of those extra hardware features — which you essentially dismiss outright — directly support what is likely the largest selling point and driver of demand: fitness tracking.
To be honest, at this point, the Apple Watch is to a wristwatch what the iPhone is to a traditional cellphone. Arguing that it’s not the best (or even a particularly good) timekeeping device isn’t particularly compelling, because such functions are secondary or even tertiary uses of the device. It’s about as silly as reviewing smartphones solely on their telecommunications stack, which is likely amongst the least-used features of a modern smartphone.
It’s fine if you really just want a timekeeping device, but your criticisms are going to go over about as well as someone wishing for a return of the Nokia candybar days.
And the Apple watch is a productive and convenient item to have in many people's lives. I have a series 2 and easily get 2 days of battery life. Apparently the series 3s can get 3 days.
For me at least, 1 week battery life is in some ways worse. It means that I will not charge it regularly, and it will likely die when I want to use it. Right now I never think about the battery on my Apple Watch, and just charge it when taking a shower in the morning.
I own a Pace and I am pretty happy with it. Not a complete smartwatch but has all the important features for me: always on screen, stylish, acceptable battery, activity tracking and notifications.
Maybe I'll get one when my Pebble dies.
Cardiogram is compatible with Apple Watch, and launched for Android Wear in October:
Our goal is to support any device with a heart rate sensor over time.
Theoretically Apple could catch up with Fitbit in this area at some point and achieve continuous 24-hour heart rate measurements.
I don't know how much useful information you can get from the variability of a metric you only sample every 5 minutes.
Anyways, I wish somebody would built a watch that split the difference between the Steel and the Apple Watch. So far, the Garmin Fenix 5S is the closest I've found, though I prefer an analog face (or good digital rendering) and a slightly less casual case.
The watch charges so quickly that dropping on the charger at 9pm for a bit is all I ever need.
Also, Garmin, you do 24/7 fitness tracking but still no smart alarm after years?
A: Drop it and measure how long it takes to hit the ground.
And I say that from a position of being educated in signal processing, not just staring slackjawed at all the numbers. It's a very noisy signal, even after processing, and while it's correlated with the values you're trying to get out of the data it's not necessarily a very strong correlation. There's a lot of headwinds against getting this data out of the accelerometer. It's a minor miracle that they are as accurate as they are.
> Even if you stand all day, you still need to move around.
The purpose of the standing goal isn't just to be stood up, it's to stretch your legs and get you away from a desk (it doubles as a good reminder to take a break from your computer screen).
My reason for this theory is that I sometimes bounce my leg when I'm sitting, and if I have my arm resting on said leg this sometimes triggers the stand goal for the hour.
I routinely get messages about having to stand up while standing up on my standing desk at work. (Series 2 here)
I’ve a series 0 however with the lesser sensor heart rate sensor so I don’t get any of these new cardio features.
I think a whole generation of fitbit users are going to be horrified when their insurance premiums go up based on data that was purchased by insurers. If Apple watch starts making a health play, I don't see why it would be any different.
The good news is you're protected by the law. Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers can only vary your rate based on your age, location, and whether you smoke. They can't take into account prior health conditions or biomarkers, including novel biomarkers measured on wearables.
Every major Republican "repeal & replace" bill has preserved this part of the law, called "rating factor limitations", although sometimes they vary the constants. For example, the Paul Ryan plan let insurers charge the elderly 5x more than the young, compared to the current law of 3x, but otherwise preserved the rule that insurers can only vary rate based on age, location, and whether you smoke.
What insurers can do is offer you a 30% (maximum) premium rebate for taking healthy actions, like going for a run, enrolling in a diabetes prevention program, or getting your blood pressure checked. But they can't tie the rebate to the outcome of the test (health status), only your participation.
This is a good point, though, and shows a case where regulation helps technology have a positive impact. If people fear their insurance premiums will go up, they'll avoid all forms of diagnosis, not just Apple Watch.
It might not always be the case but they can future-proof that claim by keeping that data on your device or protect it using differential privacy.
What might happen if health plans become habitually based on tracking (which I expect will be the case) is that having an Apple watch (or nothing) will be considered suspicious and charged a premium.
1. The extremely lucrative market of personal data
2. Their continued collection of such personal data
Some company do sell the data they have behind the scene (Experian is one of them) but there are few buyers, those buyers can tell their data is of bad quality and they have competitors with similar data, so it is hardly lucrative.
As far as I can tell, Apple’s efforts to make articles readable by removing JS-embeds a while ago, encrypt iMessage, fight the FBI about weakening their security or to fight against cross-site cookies more recently, all that seems both real and representative of how they value their product. I have not seen crowds ask for differential privacy and yet they spend precious time in their recent keynotes about it.
Apple is aggressively privacy focused. Apple is the most valuable company in the world, and none of that money has come from selling users' data despite the fact that they're sitting on probably the second most valuable corporate dataset in the world (behind Google).
And while Fitbit might also be very clear about their users' privacy, they don't share one quality Apple has: a virtual guarantee that they won't go under new ownership in the near future.
They have borrowed an identical copy of the auto insurance industry playbook . Start out by offering "discounts" in exchange for tracking, and then slowly the cost of the insurance ramps up, unless you have the discount.
Short term regressions to that seem likely enough. Long term I think you have to consider whether we even stick to anything resembling the model we have now (with mandatory private insurance being something like the baseline expectation).
However, this page does speak for Fitbit: https://www.fitbit.com/legal/privacy
For insurers to purchase data on Fitbit users, they'll have to purchase it from the users themselves.
I do know something about the financial incentives, though. Fitbit's users are its customers. Insurers and employers are a small part of revenue. The people Fitbit needs to keep happy are users.
There is stuff like If we are involved in a merger, acquisition, or sale of assets, we will continue to take measures to protect the confidentiality of personal information and give affected users notice before transferring any personal information to a new entity.
But "measures" and "notice" are pretty weak sauce if they can result in the new entity still doing whatever it wants with the data. How about an explicit opt in policy that would actually impact the sale value of the data?
FWIW, Fitbit's publicly traded stock is non-voting, so hostile takeover is not possible.
It's kinda maybe in there already, but not directly (there is an offer to delete data and the language about continuing to use the service given a change).
I consider the pledge to be nearly meaningless. It's certainly a statement of good faith from the people working at and controlling the company today, but without any sort of legal teeth, it's also little more than a wet napkin.
Fitbit seems like a cool company and I don’t personally distrust them, but I don’t think that particular argument holds water.
I don't really see what the analogous situation would be with insurers and Fitbit. Fitbit won't lose customers to a competitor that violates their privacy.
“And then you’d guide them through the appropriate final diagnosis, which would be through a blood pressure cuff and then treatment.”
Think this diagram of how Slack decides to send a notification, but for health:
(EDIT: heading to bed, but will answer questions in the morning!)
Edit: A presentation is linked, as "study":
Link to presentation: http://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/4412/presentation/4522...
A followup: Does the neural network provide some extra insight into what part of the waveform/time-series of pulses is able to provide predictive information?
The study was presented at the American Heart Association's Scientific Sessions earlier today. We included some details beyond what appears in the TechCrunch article in a blog post here:
I'd expect a more mature version of this work to appear in a medical journal, but that often takes 6-12 extra months.
What is the common root cause of error? Inaccuracies in measurement or the model classifying data incorrectly?
This thread is not the right place to grab pitchforks, just a reminder open source science was still an on-going effort.
Whats the end result of your research?
Did the 70% people you collected data are aware?
Second the other comment on technical paper. Is it available?
No technical paper yet (this was a cardiology conference), but we have some follow-up work in submission to an academic artificial intelligence conference, so hopefully we'll have a technical paper with more details out soon.
Could you please state, if the app can currently do that?
Cardiogram is a venture-backed company.
Machines to diagnose apnea have lots of sensors including electrodes, "chest-band" pulsometers, and "saturationmeters". I have asked doctors about capabilities of smart devices for apnea control or detection, all I got was laughs.
Sorry but I think this is not true. Go and see your doctor.
And given the involvement of UCSF in the study, I'd take this pretty seriously - just make sure to pay attention to the claims the study is actually making, and not the science-journalism hype.
It seems like a fallacy to claim that since diagnosis required complicated equipment in the past, that it will be necessary going forward. Machine learning is going to make tons of current diagnostic equipment look archaic in comparison.
> I have asked doctors about capabilities of smart devices for apnea control or detection, all I got was laughs.
Medical doctors are rarely up to date on the latest technology. I wouldn't be surprised if my doctor has never heard the term machine learning before in his life.
Also, their livelihood kind of depends on this technology not being available. Just food for thought.
I see this kind of confusion a lot, where "machine learning" is mistakenly used to mean obsoleting sensor data instead of obsoleting the hardcoded processing of said data.
I agree. Good thing I didn't say that :) My comment implied exactly what you wrote, that the machinery will get smaller, and machine learning will be able to make more accurate predictions from a more limited data set. Although, if we consider that the Apple Watch will be strapped to your wrist for 16 hours a day, it might actually turn out to be an expanded data set, but a smaller number of sources.
> I see this kind of confusion a lot, where "machine learning" is mistakenly used to mean obsoleting sensor data instead of obsoleting the hardcoded processing of said data.
I believe that's a misinterpretation on your part. I haven't seen anyone claim that machine learning doesn't require data from sensors.
As someone sais below "ML is not going to replace raw input from sensors."
> Medical doctors are rarely up to date on the latest technology. I wouldn't be surprised if my doctor has never heard the term machine learning before in his life.
Current dignose equipament is big, invasive and unconfortable; often they require you to stay one night at the hospital.
There are tests programs about using those devices to replace current tech (obvious reasons: less costs, less invasive tests, subject owns the hardware…)
This kind of procedures are not used because "doctors are old and non-tech people", it's because it's not working.
Sure, apps and smart devices could replace some day those devices but they need more and accurate sensors. Extrapolation of data from a good-enough pulse rate sensor it's not a replacement.
This isn't the first time or the last time that computers have been able to find patterns in much simpler measurements simply because they're not human. A similar example, although not quite as advanced, is the ability for a computer to extract sound information from a black and white video. Computers have been able to recreate sounds from behind double-paned glass by analyzing vibrations captured through videos. Humans have had to rely on various arrays of lasers, sonar, and other directional instruments to get 1/10th of the accuracy that a computer algorithm has been able to achieve from a simple, low-quality video camera. The point is that more machines and sensors doesn't always equal a better diagnosis. Better analysis of existing sensors and tech, even if it seems to be lower fidelity, can actually yield more accurate results.
You've misinterpreted my comment. I didn't claim sensors weren't required. I said that it's a fallacy to claim that the current diagnostic equipment is required. There are sensors on smart watches. Cardiogram is using data from those sensors.
> This kind of procedures are not used because "doctors are old and non-tech people", it's because it's not working.
It's not working yet (at least not enough to make a 100% accurate diagnosis). No one claimed it was. I hate to break it to you, but the equipment currently used in sleep studies isn't 100% accurate either. Neither is the human interpretation made by sleep doctors. However, to say that doctors are laughing it off makes those doctors look stupid, not Cardiogram. Based on the studies they've run so far, it's not hard to envision a future where smart watches and apps will replace a large percentage of doctors whose main source of income is sleep studies.
> Sure, apps and smart devices could replace some day those devices but they need more and accurate sensors. Extrapolation of data from a good-enough pulse rate sensor it's not a replacement.
Your claim seems to be that sleep doctors need input from a large number of sensors, so it can't be possible to make a diagnosis from a single heart rate sensor. It would appear that Cardiogram has presented evidence to the contrary:
If you disagree, make a specific criticism of their evidence.
It's for you to just download the app, try it for a night, and see the doctor if the result concern you. It doesn't have to be hundreds percent accurate.
Are you against teaching people to do self check-up of breast cancer, too? Because I'm sure medical process
of checking for breast cancer requires more complicate tools than just feeling your breast with a hand.
If you suspect that you have apnea episodes you should go to a doctor.
They weren’t legit. The watch just can’t get a good heart rate reading if it’s not situated perfectly on your wrist, and while sleeping it was pushed one way or another often enough to be useless.
I imagine if I wore my chest strap monitor I'd have better results as long as I put some kind of jelly on the electrodes to make up for the lack of sweat through the night.
We're now working on implementing care pathways within the Cardiogram app. If all goes well, you should hear something from us in the next few months.
(In general, a digital health startup requires more patience than most other types of startups: you need to run rigorous, IRB-approved clinical studies to prove the technology really works; work with health systems and insurers rigorously show health economics; and comply with applicable regulations like HIPAA and FDA. There are just a lot of details to think through.)
But no, we forget our original (and free-of-charge) way of functioning and desperately turn to commercial and unnatural solutions.
As a start, I recommend looking into the mindful meditation technique, championed by pioneers like John Kabat-Zinn.
Body still tells me to sit in a couch and eat myself to an early death though.
Now, you can wait until you’re on your death bed before you realise it, or you can pay attention to this signal your body is giving you right now that something needs to change in your life. The latter is too terrifying to consider for most people, and the former feels quite distant, so most people just carry on as “normal” with their mostly dysfunctional lives.
Listening do your body doesn’t mean acting on every impulse you feel. If I feel like smashing something, that doesn’t mean I need to immediately do it. But it is wise to ask myself, why do I feel this? Am I angry? Why am I angry? What just happened that cause this reaction in me? What clarity can this anger bring me? Should I do something about it?
The same for your body’s signals. Why do you feel like this? What has caused this unhealthy craving? Your hypothesis that this is an evolutionary pressure is interesting but easily disproved by speaking to a wide cross section of people with balanced lifestyles who don’t seem to be perpetually driven by cravings to eat everything in sight. Are they fundamentally different from you? Probably not. So what is different about the choices you make each day that lead you to live in a constant state of craving food and drink, rathet than a more balanced state of being?
Those are important but tough questions. Most people don’t bother.
Going to your GP 2-3 times a year and getting your blood pressure checked (and your blood tested for the 'regular stuff') solves the problem. 'Listening to your body' pseudoscience doesn't really solve the problem.
GP is absolutely right that we're a society that has taught ourselves to tune out important signals from the body. If we can unlearn that and better attune ourselves to the relevant sensations in the body, we'd be a lot healthier.
He asked me how old I was. 30-ish, at the time. He asked me if I felt healthy. Yep.
He said no, don't bother.
Or don't do it, maybe you'll develop cancer and not find out until it's too late!
EDIT: It's also free to go to the doctors in Australia so at least go once a year and do your routine bloods. Abnormalities can catch things before they progress too far that you have worse outcomes. You're paying for Medicare, use it! :)
Not only that but there's no such thing as "routine bloods." The reason I say that is because 1) to my knowledge there's no evidence based group that recommends any sort of blood test annually and 2)I have been to many GPs over my lifetime (~10?) and I was well into my 30s until I saw one that ordered routine bloodwork as a matter or course. All the ones before that just listened to my heart, took vitals, felt organs, etc. Then that doctor retired and I her replacement also ordered routine bloodwork. The two doctors differed greatly on which test they considered routine.
>Not too long ago, the “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” mindset changed. It became customary for everyone to have a yearly checkup with a doctor even if they were feeling perfectly well. The doctor would look in your eyes, ears and mouth, listen to your heart and lungs with a stethoscope and poke and prod other parts of your anatomy. He would do several routine tests, perhaps a blood count, urinalysis, EKG, chest-x-ray and TB tine test. There was even an “executive physical” based on the concept that more is better if you can afford it. Perhaps the need for maintenance of cars had an influence: the annual physical was analogous to the 30,000 mile checkup on your vehicle. The assumption was that this process would find and fix any problems and insure that any disease process would be detected at an early stage where earlier treatment would improve final outcomes. It would keep your body running like a well-tuned engine and possibly save your life.
>We have gradually come to realize that the routine physical did little or nothing to improve health outcomes and was largely a waste of time and money. Today the emphasis is on identifying factors that can be altered to improve outcomes. We are even seeing articles in the popular press telling the public that no medical group advises annual checkups for healthy adults. If patients see their doctor only when they have symptoms, the doctor can take advantage of those visits to update vaccinations and any indicated screening tests.
>The physical exam of a healthy, asymptomatic adult is unlikely to reveal any significant abnormality (1) that would not have been detected eventually when symptoms developed and (2) whose earlier detection and treatment would reduce morbidity and mortality in the long run.
>A directed physical exam is sometimes indicated in patients with risk factors for specific conditions. A Pap smear is indicated in most women, but not every year, and the accompanying pelvic exam is likely a waste of time.
>For healthy adults between the ages of 18 and 65, The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) recommends only these components of the traditional physical exam:
>For men, a blood pressure measurement.
>For women, a blood pressure measurement and a periodic Pap smear.
>They have other recommendations including vaccinations, counseling, and screening tests; but none of those require a physical exam.
>There is a general perception, among the public and among doctors, that there’s no such thing as a bad screening test, that early detection is important, that knowing is always better than not knowing. If something is wrong with you, you need to know because, if you find a problem in time, it can be treated effectively to prevent morbidity and mortality. If you get a checkup and everything looks OK, you can breathe a sigh of relief and relax. Unfortunately this is all wrong.
>A recent book explains why: Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health, by Drs. H. Gilbert Welch, Lisa M. Schwartz, and Steven Woloshin. It’s a comprehensive explanation of how test results make people sick and why visiting a doctor can be hazardous to your health.
>For a healthy, asymptomatic patient, the physical exam with the laying on of hands and stethoscope and other rituals is pretty much meaningless. If nothing is found, it can produce false reassurance. If something is found, it is not likely to prolong the patient’s life and it has a significant likelihood of leading to harm from unnecessary treatment or from a diagnostic cascade of tests, unnecessary surgeries, unnecessary expense, and unnecessary worry.
Well, all the big health issues in our societies are about giving a shit about your body.
What I am thinking of is this:
Listen to what your body tells you when you do the things that lead to problems like hypertension.
A bloke my sister knows (she's a nurse), was diagnosed with 'hypertension not otherwise specified', at the ripe old age of 31. But they didn't catch it early because he 'felt fine'. He wasn't overweight unhealthy. But he needs new kidneys now!
It's misinformation to say otherwise. I mean, I live in Australia, where you can visit the doctor for free, so it's like, no skin off our back to go and see one once or twice a year.
EDIT: Also, I have hypertension AND sleep apnea. I am overweight. It is most likely the cause, though we do have a history of high blood pressure in the family so until I drop 20% of my weight I'm not going to know for sure. I don't disagree with that you need to look after yourself physically and be glad if you don't have any other illness that ain't your goddamn fault.
It's possible that kidney disease caused hypertension in that case. It's pretty much impossible to prove which one came first in many cases. None of this argues in favor or against regular checkups, it was just something I thought was interesting to refer.
Otherwise you might find yourself on a slippery slope where you start implying that cancer sufferers brought it on themselves, etc.
Wilber’s book, about his wife who died of cancer, offers a powerful perspective that’s also grounded in mindfulness and explicitly discusses this topic and how to approach it more sensitively.
It’s less about “listening to your body” than remind you regularly about obvious things. Some people (like me) can focus quite easily (which is great to write code) but can get lost in their task. I know that I regularly realise that the sun is up when I keep on coding after dinner. That’s eight to ten hours that have gone by without me moving an inch. Having a reminder to go to bed has helped.
Some people will go for decades before getting a proper diagnostic - or even die before they get one.
Also, of those 10M, where would those told “your blood pressure is OK” or “you don’t have sleep apnea” get the hint to “follow up and figure it out”?
Even just having them get in a car and go to their GP, or increase their stress levels, have the potential to cause harm. It may be an exceedingly low risk, but applied to a large enough number of people and it starts adding up. When applied to conditions that not everyone has, this can easily tilt the balance.
Consider a hypothetical condition and a population of 1000000. If 1% has the condition at any one time, and the accuracy of the test is 97%, then 10,000 should have the condition. Of those we'd expect 9,700 to get the correct diagnosis; 300 would remain undiagnosed; But 3% of those who don't have the condition - an additional 29,700 - will be wrongly diagnosed.
Let's say this is a condition where 10% would die untreated without this new intervention, it'd be tempting to suggest we've saved 970 people. But early detection might not make that much of a difference - for many things the most severe cases will be noticed anyway and/or late detection is still sufficient to save the patient.
Let's assume for this hypothetical condition, earlier detection will save 10% more of those. In the above that'd save 97 people. Awesome. But lets say it causes 10% more of the undiagnosed ones to die because they wait longer. That's 3 more dead. So net 94?
But if only 0.33% of those wrongfully diagnosed end up dying as the result of the misdiagnosis, be it car crashes on the way to the GP, or the visit leading to a follow up error leading to an intervention that is generally but not always safe, then the wrongful diagnosis would kill 98 people.
I'm not saying that would be the case here. But it's an illustration of why it is important to consider not how many problems are detected, but what benefits early detection gives vs. the cost of wrongly diagnosing people, even when it seems benign enough (just another test, and they'll confirm it was a mistake?)
E.g. there's been pushback against large scale breast cancer screening for this very reason: They're very successful at finding cancer early, but most gets found eventually anyway, and the improvement in long term survival rates from the earlier detection is reasonably small.
Couple this with low overall rates of occurrence across the total population at any given point in time (cancer rates look high when considering "will X get cancer at some point in their life?", but most people will be free of cancer at any given single point in their life; even most people who have had cancer), and the impact of false positives and potential health implications of a (very small but still existent) risk involved in even something "simple" like a biopsy, and it's unclear if large scale screening is ethical (over general populations; screening of groups with sufficiently high risk factors is another matter entirely).
we have 3000 GP's in the Netherlands. Lets say the proposal will cause 30.000 patients in the Netherlands to go to the GP incorrectly per year. That will cause 8 man-year of time (20 minutes per consult, including paperwork), 4 workable consulting-hours per GP, 300 days per year. That's 0.3% of all available GP time, wasted. That time needs to come from somewhere: patients having actionable issues. Healthcare is not an unlimited resource.
Following up is not free. So that's cost incurred for the ones who have no problem in the first place.
Also here in the Netherlands we have healthcare. I'd rather see these emerging devices offer good warnings to go see a doctor then people not going at all or going to often for every little thing that they feel and googled on the internet because they are to unsure.
E.g. cause an extra million doctors visits due to wrongly diagnosing people, and the incident rate of e.g. extra infections transmitted from another patient, or compounded misdiagnosis leading to extra interventions which have some risk of failure, or even just accidents on the way to the doctors office, very quickly leads to extra harm just from the sheer volume.
That extra harm might be worth it, if the early diagnosis of others save enough lives - the same way seat belts kills some people but save far more. But it also might not, e.g. if the condition is rare enough, or early detection have little enough effect in improving outcomes.
Secondary outcomes you might look at are overall change in medical spend, e.g., is this intervention cost-saving, or at least cost-effective? And change in treatment, which may be independent of diagnosis rate.
The tweak I'd make is that you don't need to give out Apple Watches, Garmins, Fitbits, or Android Wear watches. People are buying these devices on their own already. Given ubiquity of hardware, continuous screening may be achievable at close to zero marginal cost.
- Estimated accuracy and recall of the test
- Estimated probability of user doing a follow-up based on feedback from watch
- Estimated price of a doctors visit
- Estimated probability of a follow-up test using medical grade equipment (based on additional data)
- Estimated cost per QALJ of the extra test and follow-ups
- Estimated prevalence of arrhythmia among Apple Watch users based on age-group
I expect, but do not know, the Apple Watch tests to prove to be a net-negative compared to doing nothing.
 Quality Adjusted Life Year
I’m fine with it providing the marketing does not mislead people into thinking it’s foolproof. Basically, they need to say it can only detect obvious cases, and minor/rare cases are missed.
To argue that, you need an estimate of the rate of progress with and without a deployment which I would assume is not a stretch.
The one thing that’s frustrating is installing any apps on it takes a really long time.
Then: it just lies.
Also: no. When I was working as an intern at St. Jude Medical we were training neural networks to recognize heart conditions and adjust other measurements. It was 2002. That work was later published and widely adopted. Modern medical hardware can account for it (inexpensive or older hardware often asks the technician to diagnose and calibrate the machine).
It's very frustrating that Apple continues to pretend economy of scale is breaking into new territory.
I think the job they're doing is unimpressive. I think it's doubly impressive to imply I have to buy a watch to help them. I don't see why they wouldn't pay me for my unique data. I don't need or want to help them build a shoddy diagnosis product.
Btw, I really don't mind getting down voted, but would appreciate to see your opinion on why you think Apple collecting that data is a good idea.