Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Feb 7, 2018.
And your premiums will adjust as such.
I am eager to see my heart response on health rings randomly (dis-)appearing
Those are the experiences I've had with 4-5 different doctors too. Maybe it's this area (although most things are like that around here), but I definitely don't trust doctors. Dentists are better, but still mildly sketchy. Just my personal experience.
I got the series 3 Apple Watch primarily to participate in these great studies (and get alerted for elevated resting heart rate). Does anyone know how to tell if your actually contributing to mRhythm? It says I am via cardiogram but I wasn't sure if we can see any specific data points on the mRhythm side of things. Also I'm still waiting for my Apple Heart Study invite. I just signed up last week. I'm sure all of these studies are a battery drain (and privacy risk) but feels good to contribute to the greater cause (like my efforts with Bionic / World community grid -- team link below).
@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.
No money in that. Getting people sick via junk food/drinks and then getting them on meds is highly lucrative.
I'm a huge fan of WCG. Just feels good to make a contribution to science in some way. Thanks for the info on mRhythm also I hope to eventually get accepted into the Apple Heart Study. We'll see...
Definitely in the works, all I can say.
That's still a diagnosis and not allowed by the FDA even with fine prints.
My Series 3 should be here Friday, not sure yet if I am keeping my Series 0, I may want to wear it at night.
Major props to Apple for developing the technology and research programs to further better heart health.
And...Hey MacRumors editors. This is a worthy story. Hope you'll pursue it.
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.
Just use bluetooth.
You might want to read the source article. There you will learn that the paper is being presented for the first time this week. Whether it has already been peer reviewed is not stated, but the article is quite clear that this is a new study and the findings are just now being placed in front of the science community for discussion. It says absolutely nothing about reliance by anyone on anything. The article also cites two studies on the connections between heart rate and diabetes, one of them more than ten years old. Now I don't pretend to be any kind of expert in the medicine but it seems to me that these earlier studies should be peer reviewed. They appear to be the basis for collecting this data, on a much larger scale than had previously been possible.
Also, glucose testing isn't something most people are getting routinely. If another method emerges that points to a need to be glucose tested, then I don't see the downside.
Not with the kind of accuracy needed. I seem to remember that Apple acquired a company that is developing a non-invasive glucose test.
This idea is that cells look different and reflect light differently based on the sugar being carried, but obviously you need the thinnest part of the skin to see through and you need very accurate readings.
I'm sure in my life time they will have non-invasive glucose monitoring. As long as I don't die from diabetes first. Just kidding, mine is well-controlled with medication and I don't really need to do regular testing.
Apple are in between a rock and a hard place here. They probably have the technology available to illlement medical monitoring for a whole plethora of diseases between the watch and phones. However for them to state they are medical devices would require them to get medical device certification and recertification. And should some software bug inenvitably mess up some measurements they are now liable for prosecution for not assuring the medical device was in good working order.
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.
Curious of useful uses of the pulse oximeter for training?
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.
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.
I fail to see how glucose and Hba1c measurements are less applicable to type 1 diabetes (or other types) than type 2.
As an indicator, heart rate may be sufficient cause to talk to a doctor, which in turn can confirm (or not) diabetes with relatively little effort. Thus, it's useful.
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.
--- Post Merged, Feb 8, 2018 ---
I have my doubts it's even capable of reading accurate saturations as using a green LED isn't ideal for the separation of the different Hb moieties via differential absorption of light at that wavelength - but it *is* good at picking up the plain pulse wave.
There is a reason that the two LEDs a medical grade pulse oximeter uses are 660nm and 940nm (red & infrared). It's at these wavelengths that the difference between the light absorption by oxygenated Hb and deoxygenated Hb is the greatest (and, conveniently, inverse)
And what, exactly, would be the advantage of knowing one's oxygen saturations (SpO2)?
Unless you're quite unwell - and by that stage you're *already* in hospital - everebody's SpO2 is going to between 97-99%. Or we'll have normal people losing their minds when they realise their oxygen saturations hover around 90% on a commercial airline flight. Sometimes collecting data can be a double-edged sword, especially if the signal:noise is low.
If you're SpO2 is significantly low, you'll know about it as you'll be exhausted with the most basic exercise... but just because you're exhausted from insufficient oxygen delivery doesn't mean your SpO2 is low at all. If you're severely anaemic your oxygen saturations are likely to be quite normal, yet you're actually 'deficient' in oxygen.
So again, other than nerds who know nothing about medicine getting all excited about collecting this data and 'measuring themselves', there really is no point in doing so.
But I guess everyone wants to be an expert in everyone else's field... Sigh.
--- Post Merged, Feb 8, 2018 ---
Study conducted jointly with the University of California, San Francisco.
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.
This. This was exactly my point. We would need to know much more about how the statistical analysis was conducted to determine anything about how significant (see what I did there?) the 85% number is. I have been involved with predictive studies where they would have killed for 85%, and others where that wasn't good enough. It really depends. We can't know and neither can this person.