3 ms·
These things don't do diagnostics. They just give the user a heads up and suggest they see a specialist. The sky was already falling when they did that for atri
by kergonath 5y ago
These things don't do diagnostics. They just give the user a heads up and suggest they see a specialist. The sky was already falling when they did that for atrial fibrillation, and there were lots of people claiming that it would submerge hospitals and doctors under a flow of false positive.
The sky did not fall, hospital managed just fine (before COVID, that is), nobody's precious heart rate data were leaked, and a couple of lives were saved.
These things gather metrics and suggest to see a doctor. They don't do anything like diagnostics, and they don't replace a doctor. It would just nudge someone to see a specialist, who would then diagnose according to their experience and the patient's symptoms. Noise is irrelevant here.
- knaik94 5y agoJumping from a very clear definition of AFib to very subjective diagnosis of mental health issues isn't something I'm comfortable with. Noise is relevant because the diagnosis is subjective. We're not talking about timing between heartbeats, we're talking about situation where even medical professionals can't do an invasive quantitative test to say how depressed someone is. Using privacy invading sensors doesn't make the diagnosis less subjective.