3 ms·
The Watch Is Smart, but It Can’t Replace Your Doctor
- known 7y agohttp://archive.vn/wip/QiJGY http://archive.vn/wip/QiJGY
- Redoubts 7y agoWhile you may have your own reasons for preferring web archive for this, friendly reminder that your local library (and the SFPL in particular) may give you free access to national papers.
- wilg 7y agoThis is, of course, a silly article. Firstly, it seems to predate or not include the Apple Watch models (series 4 and 5) that have ECGs. The article mentions that they got a notification about irregular heartbeat and then got mailed ECG test kits, with a 20% return rate. The new watches just perform an ECG directly, which I imagine has a much higher conversion rate. It's nice to see a recap of this afib study, but the angle of the article seems pretty unhelpful. The title claims the watch "Can’t Replace Your Doctor" which is as far as I know not something anyone rational claims or believes. So it's not surprising to learn that it cannot replace your doctor. Also the subhead is completely false: "Apple has been advertising its watch’s ability to detect atrial fibrillation. The reality doesn’t quite live up to the promise". It, as the article discusses at length, in fact _does_ detect atrial fibrillation. In 153 people in the study! Sounds great! Advertising confirmed correct! I'm not sure what I'm intended to take away from the article. The Apple Watch detects afib as advertised? And that could possibly be Actually Bad based on some handwavey mention of "misdiagnosis" (the watch does not diagnose you, your doctor does). Am I missing something interesting here?