And your premiums will adjust as such.It won't tell you what to do. It will tell your insurance company what you've been doing...
And your premiums will adjust as such.It won't tell you what to do. It will tell your insurance company what you've been doing...
I am eager to see my heart response on health rings randomly (dis-)appearingJust signed up for the app and study. Kinda cool how it shows your stats versus other people your age. Also signed up for the heart study. I’m in the Apple Heart Study as well. Hope it helps someone.
You need a better doctor![]()
Can it detect the poor diet that leads to at least one kind of diabetes? Wouldn't prevention be more valuable than treatment?
@illmaticwes The Apple Heart Study accepted a ton of people when it started quite a while ago - they are still accepting people but you can wait awhile on that. As far as cardiogram - I just signed up for that last night. That's all I really see on the app other than the profile page which shows "You're participating in mRhythm Study. Thank you!"
/Wave to another World Community Grid user! I used to be SUPER active but ever since I sold my gaming rig with GPUs galore, I figured my Macbook Air wouldn't be as much help until I have enough $ to build another.
The one thing I wish Apple would do is allow extensible bands that hook directly into the CPU. That way another company could make something like a glucose monitoring band that connects to the watch. The third party would take care of the regulatory requirements.
I'm sure there will be a disclosure and fine print stating that it only detects irregularities and is not a final diagnosis. They would have to be directed to go to their primary care doctor or in some cases, maybe, directly to the ER.
I believe that many of you don't understand just how much effort and expense apple has spent on developing this research program. I signed up late last year, and several weeks ago they notified me that they had read an irregular heart rhythm on my app. I called them, talked to a Dr. on line, they sent me a state of the art medical monitor the size of an Apple watch which is applied with a sticky tape over my heart for 7 days, I kept it attached for a week, sent it back (post payed) and they contacted me within 3 days, they had me contact one of their research Drs. who went over the results of the week long monitor, they saw no further arrhythmia , and gave me confidence that the earlier abnormal pattern was not a problem , readings showed my heart strong, and healthy. My heart has a minor abnormal pattern that I have known about for 45 years, and I've had numerous heart evaluations required by my employers. I have worn a Holter Monitor numerous times, it's bulky , hard to sleep with, and only records a day or two, the device that Apple sent me totally blew me away, light, you can shower with it on, and records on an internal chip an entire week of heart activity. Please give Apple the respect they deserve for truly using their research budget to start the next generation of wearable health monitors. Yes, I'm a Fan.
Just use bluetooth.The one thing I wish Apple would do is allow extensible bands that hook directly into the CPU. That way another company could make something like a glucose monitoring band that connects to the watch. The third party would take care of the regulatory requirements.
Nope. Don't rely on your Apple Watch or any other heart rate monitor to tell you about diabetes. The above is incredibly misleading. First off, the data has not been peer-reviewed or published in a peer-reviewed journal. Second, there's a big difference between correlation and prediction. There are numerous examples of things that correlate nicely but have absolutely nothing to do with one another, and neural networks are good at finding these correlations. For instance, US highway deaths have a 97% correlation with the rate of Mexican lemon imports.
What you're actually interested in are positive and negative predictive value - the likelihood of a given test ruling in or ruling out a condition. Until you see those words in a study - positive predictive value and negative predictive value, or at least sensitivity and specificity - all of this needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Furthermore, the purported physiologic basis of heart rate variability being able to predict diabetes based on the autonomic nervous system - is flimsy at best. There are many diabetics without autonomic dysfunction, and many with autonomic dysfunction that are not diabetic.
Type 1 diabetes is generally not predictable, and the only way to predict Type 2 diabetes is with glucose and/or A1c measurement.
That sort of accessory band function sounds good to me, but the technology isn’t there to do glucose monitoring that way.
You can use something like myfitnesspal which tracks diet as you eat - you just enter it. Then you can turn your phone on your side to see total calories, carbs, fat, protein, sodium and sugars consumed in your day. It keeps track of calories remaining you can eat during a given day (based on your height and weight and age). I've used it for a while and made it a habit so I've tracked for over 240 days now.Can it detect the poor diet that leads to at least one kind of diabetes? Wouldn't prevention be more valuable than treatment?
Yet the Apple Watch still doesn’t have a pulse oximeter three generations later, even when it was believed it would be as simple as a software update.
Alivecor makes an EKG device that is built into a band called Kardia Band (FDA approved). I bought one based on my brother's Afib and my occasional high heart rate. Great idea, but I had problems consistently getting it to read. Also I did not like the clasp on their band, was difficult for me with slight arthritis in my hands. The clincher was their app which took measurements every couple of seconds and the battery wouldn't last the day. I really wanted this to work, and maybe if my cardiologist says it would be a good idea, I will try their mobile device which is a stand alone unit, same software. My brother uses that one and likes it. Band and mobile devices communicate through hi frequency audio signals, not BT.The one thing I wish Apple would do is allow extensible bands that hook directly into the CPU. That way another company could make something like a glucose monitoring band that connects to the watch. The third party would take care of the regulatory requirements.
I think technically the sensor can detect pulse-ox. It's just the software does not read it. I don't know why Apple does not report pulse-ox, maybe it's not reliable at all.Yet the Apple Watch still doesn’t have a pulse oximeter three generations later, even when it was believed it would be as simple as a software update.
Type 1 diabetes is generally not predictable, and the only way to predict Type 2 diabetes is with glucose and/or A1c measurement.
Actually depending on the situation, that could be significant. We would have to know far more information than just a raw percentage. How much lead time, what was the p value, etc...
I think technically the sensor can detect pulse-ox. It's just the software does not read it. I don't know why Apple does not report pulse-ox, maybe it's not reliable at all.
Actually, no. They're quoting their *best* data... and it's rubbish. But it's certainly a great way to get media attention early in the process.
They're drawing some long bows. But nerds who know nothing about medicine, physiology, etc. get all hard with silly stories like this. Techno-Narcissism at its finest.
Study conducted jointly with the University of California, San Francisco.
Sigh, indeed.
Not quite sure what you're angle is... but if anyone thinks that just because a study comes from a 'reputable' source it's somehow statistically significant, let alone clinically significant (there is a big difference), they probably shouldn't be making comment. However, if you're claiming that this university is rubbish, well, that's different but I don't have an opinion on that as I'm not familiar with your tertiary institutions.
The literature is full of studies that are a waste of time - and many examples of studies that are eventually shown to be misleading or harmful and which are later withdrawn entirely. There are too many examples to mention.
It's way too early to even raise an eyebrow about this, let alone get excited. Their methodology and data analysis is not very impressive. And I really get annoyed when the first point of call for these sort of results is the media, rather than several journals where it can be commented on and validated by other similar studies. This is just all rather pathetic.
Oh dear, I should not be commenting. You sure put me in my place.
I am not raising any eyebrows or getting excited. I am simply pointing out that this study is being run in conjunction with the University of California. If you even suspect that the University of California goes in for junk science then perhaps I am not the one who should refrain commenting. I also mentioned the two studies on which this one was based (having committed the apparently grave error of reading the source story).
As for the methodology and data, I don't have access to it. Neither do you, I imagine.