Study Shows Wearable Sensors Can Tell When You Are Getting Sick (phys.org)

skids quotes a report from Phys.Org: Wearable sensors that monitor heart rate, activity, skin temperature and other variables can reveal a lot about what is going on inside a person, including the onset of infection, inflammation and even insulin resistance, according to a study by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine. Altogether, the team collected nearly 2 billion measurements from 60 people, including continuous data from each participant's wearable biosensor devices and periodic data from laboratory tests of their blood chemistry, gene expression and other measures. Participants wore between one and eight commercially available activity monitors and other monitors that collected more than 250,000 measurements a day. The team collected data on weight; heart rate; oxygen in the blood; skin temperature; activity, including sleep, steps, walking, biking and running; calories expended; acceleration; and even exposure to gamma rays and X-rays. "We want to study people at an individual level," said Michael Snyder, PhD, professor and chair of genetics. "We have more sensors on our cars than we have on human beings," said Snyder. In the future, he said, he expects the situation will be reversed and people will have more sensors than cars do.

Slashdot reader skids adds: "IT security being in the state it is, will we face the same decision about our actual lives that we already face about our social lives/identities: either risk very real hazards of misuse of your personal data, or get left behind?

Comments

Pfff!

[no-body]

If I get sick, I know it myself. Don't need no App nor sensor, got enough sensors and Apps builtin!

Re:Sensors will be the killer app for Apple Watch

[ColdWetDog]

Everyone may want to be healthy, but everyone may

- not want anyone else knowing about how healthy you are or are not
- not want the data uploaded into 'the cloud'
- not even want to know what they are doing is unhealthy

Here be Dragons.

Yes, that's why I tell them

[raymorris]

Yes, I do want my boss to know when I'm sick. I'm curious what you're getting at.

I let my boss know when I'm sick because a) I might not come in to the office, or might not get work done, b) I don't want to pass the ilness to my boss by them spending much time in my office, looking at a screen together (with our faces side-by-side), etc. and c) if they notice I seem a little off, sluggish, or even anti-social, they'll know why.

Are you suggesting that you lie to your boss and take sick time when you're not sick? If that's what you're talking about, I have a policy of not lying, so that's not an issue for me. (Of course I screw up from time to time, but since anything I do, I do to extremes, my *policy* is to never start lying or stealing, lest I soon lie and steal to extremes.)

Re:Yes, that's why I tell them

[dbIII]

Yes, I do want my boss to know when I'm sick. I'm curious what you're getting at.

I think they are getting at you not being aware of places where they fire people just for being sick.

Re:Yes, that's why I tell them

[cheetah_spottycat]

You're living in Europe, right? In the USA, a different kind of capitalism rules, and there are quite a few dystopian scenarios that I can come up with, if that kind of monitoring is not strictly regulated by privacy laws. On a company wide level, the aggregate health level becomes another key performance indicator. Your employed can and will analyze just how sick their workforce can be before productivity drops. Workload can now be increased and work conditions / safety standards lowered until that sweet spot is reached where profit is maximized. On an individual level, your biodata can not only show if you're sick, it can also calculate the risk of you becoming sick, or maybe even predict it. That is very convenient. If your employer knows you're going go drop out of work in two weeks, the human resources department has enough time to hire a replacement for you, and fire you just in time your absence might cause them a loss in productivity. On top of that, your health data will likely not be collected by your employer, but by some kind of third party. And not only will they closely cooperate with anyone else with who is interested in putting a score on your health (foremost your insurances), but also future employers. Which will of course mean, that this will primarily hit poor workers, who can't afford the best healthcare. And I could go on like that. Maybe I should write a novel :) Worst case:

Re:Sensors will be the killer app for Apple Watch

[Ol Olsoc]

Everyone may want to be healthy, but everyone may

- not want anyone else knowing about how healthy you are or are not - not want the data uploaded into 'the cloud' - not even want to know what they are doing is unhealthy

Here be Dragons.

As a diagnostic tool when visiting the doctor? Sure. But as a full time wearable - that's insane. And all of this needs massive HIPPA restraint.

Can you imagine the ads we would be served? "Hello there value customer! We see your Temperature has gone up slightly and your heart rate is elevated" This would be a good time to try some Halls Mentho-Lyptus cough drops, or Alka Seltzer plus. We'll just dispatch na Amazon drone to your house, and you'll be well on your way to feelgood town in short order.

Or the Lawyers...... "Attention, we see you have a stent installed, and many of these have failed. You could be eligible for a substantial cash reward. We've pre-dialed Suckram and Kcam agency, pick up your phone, and be on the way to resolving this great problem."

And not all bad - "Good evening Mr Olsoc - it appears your wife has finished ovulating, so time for some fun tonight! We think you would simply love some of our KY flavored lovin' gel's, Shall we ship some proto while everyone is getting in the mood?" Now in bacon flavor!

I'm getting the impression...

[iMadeGhostzilla]

From scanning the paper briefly is that those are people who would be really thrilled if they had actually discovered something useful and they hope this can lead to important new work, presumably with them being asked to follow up on it. It's almost like a marketing piece. "It is possible that the use of wearables will lead to false alarms and overdiagnosis of disease. The number of false alarms will depend upon the threshold that is set, which can be personalized." It doesn't say how it could be personalized, which sounds critical for a claim like that. "Overall, we envision that these devices could be particularly powerful for individuals who are responsible for the health of others (i.e., parents and caregivers), and perhaps also for those who have historically limited health care access, including groups with low income and/or remote geography." We didn't really check with these people, but we're sure it could work for them, and them, and also them!

I hope I'm wrong, and that someone more knowledgeable here can confirm this was good research. Because if not, it would be downright irresponsible to suggest burdening people with sensors for an outcome that could be not just not useful but possibly harmful. That would fall under "academic prostitution". Again I'm hoping this is just my ignorance and laziness to read the article carefully.