3 ms·
This is covered in the article.
by gertef 11y ago
This is covered in the article.
- joshschreuder 11y agoYeah, the article mentions that they only cover pulse tracking, not arrhythmias, but I was under the impression that even the pulse tracking was somewhat iffy due to the nature of how the tracking is performed. In fact, the article says there's a class action lawsuit because of it, which means using this data in a medical context could have gone very badly potentially.
- cordite 11y agoGiven that they were seeing if a precondition is true (arrhythmia started within last 48 hours), and the data showed that there was a significant change over time, it seems somewhat reasonable to act on if the patient wasn't totally sure. Physicians usually want to know what is different or regular for the specific patient over time, whether or not a value seems high for one person doesn't mean that action needs to be taken--but when that value changes significantly or shows a trend in a particular direction over time, that is information relevant to what procedure they decide next. It is entirely possible that the fitbit started recording data differently at or after the seizure, supposing it got shifted in the event. However, that does not invalidate the trend of the data as a whole. In this case, the patient was seemingly able to help acquire such data. If the patient said they were one way or the other, or if the patient depended on a device to fulfill that judgement, is it really the physician's fault to choose what the patient provides? IANAL