What percentage off would you consider 'wildly inaccurate" for a device that's marketed for general wellness as opposed to, for medical purposes?
2%, 5%, 10%, 25%, 50%?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Health VP Talks Glucose Monitoring on Apple Watch Amid Rumors of Noninvasive Tracking Breakthrough
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
2%, 5%, 10%, 25%, 50%?
Science != magic. If noninvasive blood glucose monitoring technology was already viable, we would’ve already seen those devices used in healthcare institutions. But no, the standard is still fingerprick or blood test.
There is the “science” part and then the FDA approval cycle, at least 4-5 years to go
Remember the first rumors that Apple was looking into measuring blood sugar levels... think that was over a decade ago.
Any of those inaccurate numbers in the double digits could be very dangerous for a diabetic. Even 5%.
I agree for a diabetic but I was specifically talking about blood oxygen which the original poster was talking about.
Excellent news. I think Apple will be moving quickly on this.
As an aside, it's very understandable why Apple is not revealing a lot of detailed technical information at this point in time.
As an aside, it's very understandable why Apple is not revealing a lot of detailed technical information at this point in time.
This is what differentiate between real science and pseudo science of Silicon Valley. With a device like this, high accuracy and precision are required. Meanwhile, Silicon Valley pseudo science thinks they can replace real science with their made up algorithm.
I mean do we want to trust the same people who cannot even make Siri work to do proper health devices?
The real science part is not even there yet. If it were, we would’ve already seen such non-invasive devices commercially. If this was already viable, the existing big players like Bayer and Medtronics would’ve jumped in already.
If the issue is shrinking it down to something that fits in a watch and costs less than a car, put it on the market as a stand alone device. It would be very useful as something like a blood pressure cuff. It would be fantastic to take a reading, eat something, take a reading, run a mile, take a reading... It would be fantastic for athletes.
Corporate fast food America will block advances to this tech. If people see how what they eat affects blood sugar and insulin they would abandon all processed garbage food. we can’t have that…..
I think blood pressure monitoring should be more of a priority. Would save a lot of lives.
Yeah, totally. Though if I were diabetic I'd still use the first-gen noninvasive sensor (in conjunction with traditional monitoring). And maybe after a period if I were convinced of the accuracy and precision of the Apple tech, I'd rely on the non-invasive solution exclusively.
I bet they are working on that as well.
They definitely needed to use 'real science' to get FDA approval to market the ability to detect select arrythmias. It also seems unlikely that Apple would market a 'general wellness glucose monitor' - no matter their disclaimers, I think it would be hard to argue people wouldn't mistake it for a real medical device. So, their glucose monitoring would also need FDA clearance.
Simply look at how giddy people here, thinking that Apple has magically “done it”, ignoring how the big players in medical devices themselves have not reached marketable viable devices with this non invasive technique. People are gullible and easily succumbed to marketing.
It depends what we're measuring. Something like blood oxygen needs to be very accurate and consistent to be useful. If it's off by a few percentage points and gives completely different readings when taken minutes apart I'd probably consider it wildly inaccurate. Certainly not useful. I have a series 5 myself so don't have any personal experience but this article and others like it didn't leave me very hopeful.
Review | The new Apple Watch says my lungs may be sick. Or perfect. It can’t decide.
Both the Apple Watch Series 6 and Fitbit Sense have new blood-oxygen apps. They’re mostly useless.
www.washingtonpost.com
People know how bad alcohol, cigarettes and drugs are, they still do them. For many people food is their drug and they already know it’s bad, this isn’t going to change many people.
I think the difference is medical manufacturers have little to gain spending billions on research when they already control the market. Why spend the money if at the end of the day you’re going to have the same customers? Apple on the other hand would be building customers and has the money to blow.
Will be great if Apple can incorporate non invasive blood sugar monitoring into Apple watch in the next couple of years
That sensational headline is enough for me to not read any further.It depends what we're measuring. Something like blood oxygen needs to be very accurate and consistent to be useful. If it's off by a few percentage points and gives completely different readings when taken minutes apart I'd probably consider it wildly inaccurate. Certainly not useful. I have a series 5 myself so don't have any personal experience but this article and others like it didn't leave me very hopeful.
Review | The new Apple Watch says my lungs may be sick. Or perfect. It can’t decide.
Both the Apple Watch Series 6 and Fitbit Sense have new blood-oxygen apps. They’re mostly useless.