Slashdot Mirror
Apple Watch Can Detect An Abnormal Heart Rhythm With 97 Percent Accuracy, UCSF Study Says (techcrunch.com)
According to a study conducted through heartbeat measurement app Cardiogram and the University of California, San Francisco, the Apple Watch is 97 percent accurate in detecting the most common abnormal heart rhythm when paired with an AI-based algorithm. TechCrunch reports: The study involved 6,158 participants recruited through the Cardiogram app on Apple Watch. Most of the participants in the UCSF Health eHeart study had normal EKG readings. However, 200 of them had been diagnosed with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (an abnormal heartbeat). Engineers then trained a deep neural network to identify these abnormal heart rhythms from Apple Watch heart rate data. Cardiogram began the study with UCSF in 2016 to discover whether the Apple Watch could detect an oncoming stroke. About a quarter of strokes are caused by an abnormal heart rhythm, according to Cardiogram co-founder and data scientist for UCSF's eHeart study Brandon Ballinger. Cardiogram tested the deep neural network it had built against 51 in-hospital cardioversions (a procedure that restores the heart's normal rhythm) and says it achieved a 97 percent accuracy in the neural network's ability to find irregular heart activity. Additional information available via a Cardiogram blog post.
I don't think anyone should be trusting their health to an overpriced overrated POS like an apple watch.
> the Apple Watch is 97 percent accurate in detecting the most common abnormal heart rhythm when paired with an AI-based algorithm. TechCrunch reports:
What the AI say when asked how to make a cup of tea?
If it gave a senible answer, it might be an AI.
Otherwise it was yet another overmarketed expert system.
> the Apple Watch is 97 percent accurate in detecting the most common abnormal heart rhythm when paired with an AI-based algorithm. TechCrunch reports:
What the AI say when asked how to make a cup of tea?
If it gave a senible answer, it might be an AI.
Otherwise it was yet another overmarketed expert system.
Flag as Inappropriate
You're wearing it wrong
Read any tutorial on Bayes theorem. Chances are most of the positive results will be false positives, but neither patients/consumers nor their doctors understand that, they hear "97 percent accuracy" and "You tested positive".
Elaine moaned happily as she faked her orgasm, clenching down around Marlon's cock with her cunt.
- Men are such idiots, - she thought smugly as she watched him stiffen and shoot his sperm into his condom, - Tighten your pussy a couple of times and they think they've given you the fuck of the century. -
Elaine usually came with Marlon, but today she just hadn't been into it and really just wanted to watch Letterman, so she faked it.
"Wow!" gasped Marlon, pushing forward a couple more times, his admittedly large cock pushing apart her cunt,"Some fuck, huh?"
"Oooh yeah baby, you're the greatest," she moaned back at him.
He slowly pulled out and flopped onto his back, his cock was slightly softened, and had fallen back onto his belly, it looked like a little blind man in a slicker and Elaine stifled a giggle, if there was one thing men hated it was to be laughed at when they were naked.
"Say, wanna watch Letterman?" she asked him, picking up the remote control.
"Yeah, whatever," he moaned, like most men Marlon lost interest in everything just after sex.
She flicked it on, Letterman was introducing his first guest of the evening, Jennifer Love Hewitt.
"Man, she's hot," muttered Marlon through half-closed eyelids.
"Hmmm?" asked Elaine.
"I love women with big tits," he whispered, half asleep now.
Elaine grinned,"Then you must love me!"
Marlon looked over at her with an almost disinterested look, he rolled over and muttered something before dropping off.
"Huh!" muttered Elaine, losing interest in Letterman.
-
"What's with the water?" asked Jerry.
"What?" replied George, a phony grin on his face,"A guy can't drink water?"
"That's like your seventh glass of water since we got in here."
George looked a little embarassed,"Ummm... I... I'm keeping myself hydrated."
"Uuhhhh, Georgie Porgie on a fitness kick?" laughed Jerry, just loud enough so people around them could hear. He knew George hated people to think he was insecure about his health and fitness, even though he was.
"What's wrong with keeping in shape?"
Jerry raised an eyebrow,"I think you left being in shape behind in grade school."
George snorted.
"So anyway," he said,"I heard that you gotta drink sixty cups of water a day to keep hydrated... man! sixty! No wonder I'm in such bad shape, I haven't been getting enough water!"
"Yeah, that's the reason," Jerry murmured.
Elaine entered the cafe.
"Lainee!" cried Jerry.
"Hmmmph," Elaine hmmmphed, sitting down next to Jerry.
"What's the problem?" asked Jerry, but before she could reply George interrupted.
"The water jug is empty... is it to much to ask they kept it full?"
"Yeah George," grunted Elaine, rolling her eyes,"It real high on their list of priorities."
"I'm going to get some more, you gotta have sixty cups of water a day you know."
He got up and walked to the counter, Elaine turned to look at Jerry.
"Sixty cups? Shouldn't that be six tea cups?"
Jerry smiled, thin and sardonic,"Shhhh, this is more fun than telling him."
George returned, he poured himself a glass of water and sat down, as he took his first sip he glanced at his watch.
"Oh wow!" he said, putting the glass down,"I have to meet Linda at her work, I gotta go."
He stood up and grabbed the glass, bringing it to his lips he threw his head back and swallowed it all down, thumped it on to the table and walked out with a brief wave at the two of them.
"I guess that's a loser's idea of a kegger?" Elaine commented,"Hey, what's Linda like, he's been going out with her for nearly a month now... for us that's huge."
"Yeah, he's been saying he's gotten really comfortable with her, so I think we know what's next...."
"Yep, he's gonna dump her."
"Exactly!"
The waitress finally realized that Elaine had arrived and came to take her order, she got a slice of apple pie.
"
Most patients can do it too. You don't really need an electronic device to tell you that you don't feel right. On the bright side most abnormal heart rhythms are harmless and quite common as you get older. The ones you have to watch for are the ones associated with effort/exercise, the ones that last more than a few minutes, the ones associated with pain, dizzyness or shortness of breath, or the ones that keep recurring.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Show the FDA 510K filings and clinical trails proving this for professional health care use, then this claim as merit.
A heartbeat is basically a one dimensional list of pairs of numbers (strength of beat, time since last beat). Creating an algorithm to figure out when something like that starts getting fucky doesn't sound like a problem that needs the full power of deeplearningAIneuralnetothermarketinggibberishAPPSMOTHERFUCKER brought to bear on it.
I can make an HIV test that is over 99% accurate by classifying all tests as negative. Accuracy is a stupid metric.
It is NOT the accuracy!
It is the FAILURE!
AI algos do not represent any kind of validated benchmark to anything!
AI algos are always WRONG.
Jajajajajajajajajajajajajaja
Bravo, sir. Much more informative than this retarded article. May I say wee-todd-did awtikel.
Apple watch did not detect anything except electrical impulses.
Electrical impulses were recorded, so the iFruit was used as a data logger. Nothing more. Researchers used the iFruit with an off-label application. Misleading article accepted by an IDIOT MILLENIAL "editor."
5958 / 6158 = 0.9675
It probably classified everyone as the negative case. I couldn't find the paper or the confusion matrix, but this seems like a lot of noise. Accuracy is a useless metric for class imbalanced data.
Cardiogram is also available on Android devices. Is TFA paid for by Cardiogram or Apple?
Now every numbnuts apple worshipper will think their itoy watch is medical grade equipment.
So let's say a false negative rate of 3% - no mention of false positives.
So for every 100 people who *do* have a abnormal heart rhythym, 3 won't know it.
So if you sell it to 100,000 people, 3,000 people won't get the proper answer.
At a certain point, it feels like those false negatives are going to affect a lot of people, who might look at Apple as liable for giving them incorrect information...and we haven't even looked at consequences from false positives.
> About a quarter of strokes are caused by an abnormal heart rhythm
But what about the opposite? How frequently does an abnormal heart rhythm result in a stroke? TFA doesn't mention it.
If this is a low proportion, then there will be many false positives, making detection of abnormal heart rhythm useless in terms of stroke prediction. It will only serve in increase anxiety of users.
My friends heart rate monitor that cost him £10 can detect AF as well. No fancy AI needed...
(He has AF on and off)
The way I see it, having a watch tell you that you have an abnormal heart rate might in some cases potentially help prevent problems but more often than not it's simply going to scare the shit out of people for no good reason. While it is true that a number of problems can be related to an abnormal heart rate, it's also a fact that the majority of people with an abnormal heart rate have no problems as a result of it. Besides, my regular low cost, no-frills blood pressure monitor detects my abnormal heartbeat 100% of the time, without the absurd price tag or fancy AI.
This is going to be the problem with this, and Personal Injury Sharks will take note. People will "rely" on these devices for monitoring critical health issues when strictly speaking they should not. It really doesn't matter how big and bold Apple, FitBit, or whoever makes the disclaimer that it's not certified by the FDA for this sort of thing, the layers will still sue.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
You feel fine. You have a common "missed beat" or something. You never knew it. Now you know it. You worry. A positive feedback loop ensues, in which the dread, stress, and occasional panic induce more serious symptoms.
Maybe this wouldn't happen. Maybe it would. That's why we need some real studies. Until then, I'll just assume that leading a better lifestyle than my Dad \(who died at 82\) is OK. Statistically, I know it is. Any *proven* tech that enhances that is icing on the cake.
I'd love to have such an app, but I don't have an iPhone nor am I going to be buying an iPhone. The data plans are prohibitively expensive and I don't need mobile calling or texting at that cost, when I can get it with pay-as-you go for $5/mo on a flip phone. I do have an iPad with Wifi though, so if the Apple Watch ever works with those, this app would be enough to make me want to buy one.
Also, by how much is the "machine learning, neural network" approach better than simpler approaches? There's no point in shooting machine learning bullets at things that can be analyzed with much simpler means to a similar degree of sensitivity and specificity.
I bet that a much simpler algorithm could produce similar results. But nowadays it seems to be the latest fad to throw machine learning at fairly plain signal/data processing problems.
A crashed advertisement reveals the code of the facial recognition system used by a pizza shop in Oslo
A crashed advertisement reveals logs of a facial recognition system
Theres less than 3% of people having an abnormal heart rhythm. Are those that dont get detected?
FFT even an audio signal of the beat, or light-level through the finger or whatever.
Produce some simple stat on the regularity and speed of the heartbeat from that data.
Use that number to establishment a limit, to use as a diagnostic against those who are medically diagnosed with such conditions.
Apply that limit to Yes/No answer.
If it got WORSE than 97% accuracy, I'd be surprised.
It it took more than a handful of code coupled with an audio/camera and FFT library, I'd be amazed.
The processing power required would be pathetic.
Whether or not it would actually BE USEFUL as a diagnostic device with that kind of accuracy? That's another matter entirely.
...when paired with an AI-based algorithm
Sounds to me like it's the AI-based algorithm that's doing the detecting here. Not the watch.
Heart arrhythmia (missed beats) is not all that uncommon and is not something that one needs to be overly concerned about. Sugar intake can cause it in some people, but their heart will return to normal beating after the sugar is processed by the body. I know someone with this problem and the only thing they have to watch is to not get too much sugar at a time. The watch is basically worthless concerning this.
Go ahead and try to write an algorithm that can measure heart rate purely in software. We'll wait.
If I read the article correctly and the Blog post, they took the readings from the Apple Watch and processed them separately, during which they were able to to detect the abnormal rhythms.
This is a far cry from the Apple Watch continually analyzing your pulse and providing real time warnings of impending cardiac events. It seems to merely point out that that Apple Watch is an adequate data collection device.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
How does this apply to their competitors??
Accuracy of a test can be deceiving when the base rate is lower than the inaccuracy of the test. In other words, if the accuracy of this test is 97% and the base rate of arrythmia is 2.5% (wikipedia) then false positives will outnumber true positives meaning that if your phone says you have arrythmia, there's about a 55% chance it's right, not a 97% chance. Take 350,000,000 people. 2.5% or 8,750,000 have arrythmia. 8,487,500 (97%) will recieve a correct positive reading. 262,500 (3%) will have a false negative reading. Of those without arrythmia, 341,250,000 people, 97% (341,250,000 people) will recieve a correct negative reading. 3% (10,237,500 people) will receive a false positive diagnosis. The false positives outnumber the correct positives by about 1.2:1.
I'm an Afib patient, so I thought I'd weigh in:
1. Any device that measures your pulse can be used detect an arrhythmia, but it takes an electrocardiogram and a cardiologist to tell what kind of arrhythmia it is. Since your pulse comes from the left ventricle, I don't see how it can distinguish the various types of superventricular (originating above the ventricles) arrhythmias. I see this app as mostly useful to monitor people with previously diagnosed atrial fibrillation, on the assumption that they are unlikely to have a second type of arrhythmia.
2. The stroke risk comes from blood clots forming in the heart, because atrial fibrillation reduces the ability of the atria to pump blood, allowing it to stagnate and form a clot, which can break loose and travel into the arteries. The general rule of thumb seems to be that Afib attacks lasting less than 48 hours don't pose much of a stroke risk, but longer spells require anticoagulant drugs.
3. The electrocardiogram machines in my local hospital's ER use a diagnostic algorithm to identify different types of arrhythmias, but the ER doctors generally take that as a suggestion, not a diagnosis.
4. There are (relatively) inexpensive electrocardiogram machines available on Amazon, but I don't know how useful they are. I've never yet seen a cardiologist or electrophysiologist who would show me an electrocardiogram printout and say "this is what your heart is doing." They all seem to think that understanding an ECG is beyond the ability of most patients.
97% of Apple Watch wearers have abnormal heart activity.
Heart racing... breathing rapid... alertness heightened... bloodflow to extremities increased... it must be product announcement season at One Infinite Loop again!