Slashdot Mirror
Massive Study Finds Apple Watch Can Detect Undiagnosed Heart Rhythm Problems (engadget.com)
An anonymous reader quotes Engadget:
Researchers from Stanford University's School of Medicine presented results from a giant study sponsored by Apple Inc. that showed the Apple Watch can sometimes spot patients with undiagnosed heart-rhythm problems, without producing large numbers of false alarms. The Apple-sponsored trial enrolled 419,297 people and was one of the largest heart-screening studies ever.
The study, details of which are being presented today at the American College of Cardiology conference in New Orleans, used the watch's sensors to detect possible atrial fibrillation... People who have atrial fibrillation are at risk of blood clots and strokes. In the U.S., it causes 750,000 hospitalizations a year and contributes to 130,000 deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Because it doesn't always produce outward symptoms, it can go undiagnosed. According to results presented Saturday, about 0.5 percent of patients in the study -- or almost 2,100 people -- received notices from their watch indicating that they might have a heart-rhythm problem. That relatively low number showed that the technology wasn't inundating people with worrisome alerts.
People receiving a notification were asked to then wear an ECG (electrocardiography) patch, according to the Verge, adding that Stanford reports "84 percent of the time, participants who received irregular pulse notifications were found to be in atrial fibrillation at the time of the notification."
The dean of Stanford's medical school says the study "opens the door to further research into wearable technologies and how they might be used to prevent disease before it strikes."
The study, details of which are being presented today at the American College of Cardiology conference in New Orleans, used the watch's sensors to detect possible atrial fibrillation... People who have atrial fibrillation are at risk of blood clots and strokes. In the U.S., it causes 750,000 hospitalizations a year and contributes to 130,000 deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Because it doesn't always produce outward symptoms, it can go undiagnosed. According to results presented Saturday, about 0.5 percent of patients in the study -- or almost 2,100 people -- received notices from their watch indicating that they might have a heart-rhythm problem. That relatively low number showed that the technology wasn't inundating people with worrisome alerts.
People receiving a notification were asked to then wear an ECG (electrocardiography) patch, according to the Verge, adding that Stanford reports "84 percent of the time, participants who received irregular pulse notifications were found to be in atrial fibrillation at the time of the notification."
The dean of Stanford's medical school says the study "opens the door to further research into wearable technologies and how they might be used to prevent disease before it strikes."
Because it’s not a medical device that is designed and guaranteed to spot that specific set of problems. So is your objection that the study is being accurate in its reporting?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Maybe because it's just a watch and wasn't designed to do this? I think the point of the research is to guide the development of better detection. Things always improve over time, right? From TFA:
“The study is an important first step in figuring out how can we use these technologies in a way that’s evidence based,”
and
“Atrial fibrillation is just the beginning, as this study opens the door to further research into wearable technologies and how they might be used to prevent disease before it strikes”.
As for right now, even getting notification "sometimes" is better than "never".
This sounds like an incredible invasion of privacy. If the device was not designed to do this, and I didn't purchase it to do this, why is it doing this?
Perhaps because these people specifically volunteered for this study? Apple announced it from the stage of a keynote a year or two back and opened it up to the public that same day. Participants had to fill out medical forms and the usual medical waivers before they’d be a part of the study, so this isn’t a case of yet another big company harvesting data from unaware users like you’re trying to paint it.
That’s not what he’s saying. The Apple Watch has a heartbeat monitor. As a non-medical device, it probably can measure heartbeats within reasonable accuracy for consumers. When judged to medical device standards, it might not be as good. What the study says is that if you allow it to record data over a long period of time, it might be able to spot certain health problems. But don’t use its data alone before scheduling surgeries. The function is there only to alert to possible problems that more extensive medical tests can verify.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
And an iPhone can only work with a Macbook...
or windows, or no computer at all....
The people in this study volunteered. If you're not in a study, the data never leaves your watch and phone.
First of all, the feature can't be triggered accidentally. You actually have to actively participate in this measurement. So any privacy concerns are pretty unfounded.
Secondly, it's designed to be a useful tool, but its sole purpose is not to detect irregular heart rhythms. It's something Apple thought they could do that would make the lives of some people better, so they did it. But that doesn't mean it's an actual medical-grade device. It's just good enough to tell you to contact your doctor so they can hook you up to a single-purpose medical-grade system (which I'm sure also has its own margin of error).
You have this exactly backwards. Apple is making this technology available to more people, not fewer.
If you don't like Apple, you can always buy a device from Omron or some other manufacturer. It's way more expensive than an Apple Watch and doesn't do as much. It will do a better job of monitoring your heart though.
This sounds like an incredible invasion of privacy. If the device was not designed to do this, and I didn't purchase it to do this, why is it doing this?
Watch for the EU to define a new Right To Die of Undiagnosed Heart Trouble. Brussels could then fine Apple a jillion kajilllion brazillion Euro for violating it.
Key phrases in the article. Looks more like damning with faint praise. Why only "sometimes"? For something that is worn as much as an Apple Watch, it should "nearly always" be able to spot a problem.
You REALLY don’t like Apple, do you? Because you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel to try and come up with anything against this.
Being able to cheaply (by medical standards) and passively detect a previously undiagnosed, major medical issue in 0.5% of participants with a false positive rate of 16% or less using a device that people are actually interested in regularly wearing (i.e. unlike most medical devices) is simply incredible. Doctors have no idea how prevalent some of these ailments actually are, since they tend not to see them until major symptoms start to present themselves or the person is already in a hospital setting for some other condition. If they’re able to start getting good data about how often and to whom these things happen in the population and how the symptoms develop across a wide number of people, they can start to understand the risk factors and develop better treatment plans.
This is a good thing, but you’re right, it should be better.
Thankfully, it already is. This study was started quite awhile ago, so it only included Series 3 and earlier Apple Watches. Notably, it didn’t include the Series 4 watches that came out later with significantly better sensors and the ability to conduct ECGs on the spot, so things are already much better, just like you wanted.
Please download my fake defibrillator app. $12.88.
,
And just in time for April 1st, fake heart condition popup warnings that tell you to go to the closest emergency room immediately, spoofing your GPS connection to make you drive in circles.
Yay technology.
If you're rich, you can better protect yourself!
You started that sentence off accurately, but finished it incorrectly. It should have finished with, “and if you’re not, there’s now something reasonably accurate that you can pick up for cheap!” Apple Watches are only expensive until you compare them to virtually anything in the medical device market. Devices like these make pervasive diagnostics SIGNIFICANTLY more affordable.
Key phrases in the article. Looks more like damning with faint praise. Why only "sometimes"?
Gee, why not ask whoever wrote the summary? Because the article ITSELF has the title:
Stanford study finds Apple Watch can detect irregular heart rhythms
That's not very faint at all, and "sometimes" never appears in the article.
The problem is, whoever added "sometimes" to the summary didn't understand what the 84% was about...
For something that is worn as much as an Apple Watch, it should "nearly always" be able to spot a problem.
I think you need to read the actual article; it may well have "nearly always" spotted afib conditions. All we DO know from the study is that 84% of detected cases were valid, with the remaining 16% being false positives - we have no idea if it missed any or not. But it alerted more than 100% of the time in known valid cases. That is "nearly always +" as It were, with the key thing to get right not being to alert more often, but actually less.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Medical devices generally do not come with guaranteed results.
Health Insurers will devise MITM interception malware to assure they never sell you coverage.
Probably a great time there are in fact real CPR apps that help.
One of the apps alerts people nearby that know CPR an event is happening, so you get quicker response.
There are also educational apps that help you learn CPR, better than nothing if you are the only one there. Although I do not know which apps do this, it also seems like CPR apps could help with timing of the presses and breathing assist you are supposed to be doing.
So don't make too light of apps that can help someone having an attack...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I suppose it could look up your medical records online, but HIPAA....
"Shoot, a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff."
And an iPhone can only work with a Macbook...
This is completely and utterly false.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
What we need is an open standard for this data. I should be able to buy any heart rate monitor and have it report data back, with manufacturers able to certify devices to agreed standards.
There isn't anything particularly special about the Apple Watch heart rate monitor, other than the price tag. If we can make this more affordable and accessible (i.e. no Apple lock-in) it could be a great tool that a lot of people could benefit from.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Well, if you'd actually bothered to read the article, or any of the articles about the study when it launched, or any of the materiel and disclosures from the study itself; or if you'd bothered to educate yourself in any way whatsoever, you'd know that you had to volunteer and opt in by:
1) Downloading a separate app for the study
2) Read the agreement about what data is collected and how it is used
3) Explicitly agree to said agreement
4) Wait to be accepted into the study
5) Be notified that you were accepted and that data sharing would begin
6) Remain in the study by keeping the app installed throughout
But hey... Don't let any little thing like facts get in the way of your "Apple is teh satan" narrative. Rant on.
Imagine all the people...
Don't kid yourself, the heart rate monitor and other sensors being put in the Apple Watch are better than much of what's going into other devices, though they certainly aren't limited to Apple devices. The software however is the key though more than many of the sensors, that is something that Apple is putting a lot of effort into, as well as expense.
The funny thing is people especially android fanboys like to mock Apple, and honestly with good reason sometimes.
In many ways for most people the stuff being added isn't sexy or neat as say a folding screen. However consider this, the Apple Watch 4 has fall detection out of the box and has been credited with saving several people. While at $400 am Apple Watch isn't cheap, a stand alone fall monitor will run someone $20 a month, 2 years of that will be $480 well more than the Apple Watch. None of the medical stuff on the watch require a subscription.
Really of all the wearable items, the Apple Watch 4 is really the first that I have seen where it's not just an accessory or toy, and it will hopefully lead to other devices not just Apple that have real benefit medically, which is an area with tons of opportunity.
It could be used to spot problems; however, has Garmin or Pebble or any other consumer device like this been used like this before? I would guess not as the Smart Watch is a new class of consumer devices.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
No they are guaranteed to give test results not results of prognoses. A heartbeat monitor will be guaranteed to measure every heartbeat of a patient for months, years without failing.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
"Then why is Apple sponsoring studies like this one, which give the implication it might be?"
Yes, let's spend a few millions of taxpayer money and let the scientists buy a couple of thousand Apple watches themselves just for the fun of doing a test.
Nobody is stopping you. Apple spent hundreds of millions of dollars to make their own. Obviously you can do much better given your extensive experience as an internet critic.
All that matters is what team you're on.
That's right, you can have AF and not even know it. As someone who had AF (ablation fixed it, for now...), I found that to be absolutely bizarre. I absolutely knew I was in AF without even taking my pulse, and yet nurses and doctors assured me that there were people who wouldn't know they were in AF.
The fact that the watch can detect this well enough to tell you that you should talk to your doctor about it, is a big deal.
You really, really don't want a stroke.
Absolute statements are never true
From what I know many smart watches have similar functionality. Any other company sponsoring a study like this should be held to same interest and skepticism. If properly implemented, smart watches could provide additional benefits as health monitors.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but this survey was an opt-in survey with end users who already owned their own Apple Watch. It's great that 2000 people now have the option of following up with their health care provider's to see if it's a significant issue or not. Before this survey was announced I asked my family doctor about a couple of warning from my AW about low heart rate, and after a 48 hour heart monitor they did identify a problem. Without the AW I would never have known there might have been a problem, and certainly never raised the issue with my doctor. Overall I think the AW is a terrific piece of hardware, and if it helps *any* people identify potential health issues then it's money well spent.
Apple sponsored the stddy. They did not do the study. You are free competing study but I doubt you would.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
And cardiologists will soon be overloaded with work because many people have irregular heartbeats and in only a few of them this is problematic.
-- Cheers!
Jealous that your government doesn’t give a shit about you?
-- Cheers!
I have an actual arrythmia. I am probably alive cause my wife happens to be a doctor, saw the symptoms, had a stethoscope with her and told me to get my ass to the expert with an ECG RIGHT NOW. And the episode repeated with me being directly plugged into the ethernet for three weeks.
I would have volunteered any day of the week, and I already have a Kardia. Having the thing permanently attached would be a godsend.
And Apple did not breach privacy laws, nothing was done without anybodyâ(TM)s consent.
If you think it is Ok to withhold medical data from medical professionals because bla bla privacy bla bla I will laugh at you when you lie dying in the street and yell at the emergency responder that he should leave you heart alone, the rythm stays there.
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
That assumes those with problematic irregular heartbeats will discover the problem independently, before it's too late to monitor and potentially correct.
And it opens the opportunity to do MORE research in discovering what is a "safe" irregular heartbeat and what is going to be problematic.
Atrial Fibrillation has a rather distinct signature on an ECG so it's not as if the watch will see "irregular heartbeat, see doctor!" it will try to figure out if it's potentially something serious.
Yes, it's so much better to let people that wouldn't know that they have an irregular heartbeat die. I'm sure the cardiologists aren't going to be too concerned with the uptick in appointments—there doesn't appear to be a problem with false alarms. Like, that's in the first couple of lines of the *summary*.
But you as an old and grey slashdot visitor should know that nobody reads the articles ;).
-- Cheers!
Troll? Wow, the Apple fan-boi mods have even thinner skin than the Microsoft fan-boi mods. Who wudda thunk?