3 ms·

It doesn’t matter. Have you compared the HRV data from different devices? Have you compared the Apple HRV data and the data from other devices to a reference

by zepto 6y ago

It doesn’t matter. Have you compared the HRV data from different devices? Have you compared the Apple HRV data and the data from other devices to a reference instrument, or confirmed that it meets some standard? The Apple Watch is the reference instrument for this paper. It would be a scientific error to conceal that fact. This isn’t about product endorsements, it’s about saying what laboratory equipment was used so that other scientists don’t have hidden confounds when they attempt to replicate.

screamingninja 6y ago
> The Apple Watch is the reference instrument for this paper. Exactly. It is an instrument used to gather metrics. The study is about analyzing the metrics and not so much about the tools used to gather those metrics. Read the paper's title.
- zepto 6y ago
  The Apple Watch is mentioned 27 times in the paper. No other HRV instrument is mentioned. Also, I recommend looking into how the scientific method works. Generally if you don’t have a standardized instrument, you must say what instrument you used. If they said “HRV sensors can in general detect covid”, they would be making a claim not supported by their results. You seem desperate to not have Apple’s name associated with this paper, but it would be unscientific not to name it. Good scientists are careful not to make generalizations they can’t support with evidence or references.
screamingninja 6y ago
> It would be a scientific error to conceal that fact. Who said anything about concealing any facts?
- zepto 6y ago
  > Title is misleading IMO. The study has nothing specific to do with Apple Watch. They mentioned that they used "a commonly worn commercial wearable device (Apple Watch)" for testing. The title is factual and not misleading. It seems like you want it changed to remove a fact. > Any device with continuous heart rate monitoring will do. This is something you assert, is definitely not a conclusion of the study, and is misleading.

by zepto 6y ago

screamingninja 6y ago

> The Apple Watch is the reference instrument for this paper. Exactly. It is an instrument used to gather metrics. The study is about analyzing the metrics and not so much about the tools used to gather those metrics. Read the paper's title.

zepto 6y ago
The Apple Watch is mentioned 27 times in the paper. No other HRV instrument is mentioned. Also, I recommend looking into how the scientific method works. Generally if you don’t have a standardized instrument, you must say what instrument you used. If they said “HRV sensors can in general detect covid”, they would be making a claim not supported by their results. You seem desperate to not have Apple’s name associated with this paper, but it would be unscientific not to name it. Good scientists are careful not to make generalizations they can’t support with evidence or references.

screamingninja 6y ago

> It would be a scientific error to conceal that fact. Who said anything about concealing any facts?

zepto 6y ago
> Title is misleading IMO. The study has nothing specific to do with Apple Watch. They mentioned that they used "a commonly worn commercial wearable device (Apple Watch)" for testing. The title is factual and not misleading. It seems like you want it changed to remove a fact. > Any device with continuous heart rate monitoring will do. This is something you assert, is definitely not a conclusion of the study, and is misleading.