| > As someone sais below "ML is not going to replace raw input from sensors." You've misinterpreted my comment. I didn't claim sensors weren't required. I said that it's a fallacy to claim that the current diagnostic equipment is required. There are sensors on smart watches. Cardiogram is using data from those sensors. > This kind of procedures are not used because "doctors are old and non-tech people", it's because it's not working. It's not working yet (at least not enough to make a 100% accurate diagnosis). No one claimed it was. I hate to break it to you, but the equipment currently used in sleep studies isn't 100% accurate either. Neither is the human interpretation made by sleep doctors. However, to say that doctors are laughing it off makes those doctors look stupid, not Cardiogram. Based on the studies they've run so far, it's not hard to envision a future where smart watches and apps will replace a large percentage of doctors whose main source of income is sleep studies. > Sure, apps and smart devices could replace some day those devices but they need more and accurate sensors. Extrapolation of data from a good-enough pulse rate sensor it's not a replacement. Your claim seems to be that sleep doctors need input from a large number of sensors, so it can't be possible to make a diagnosis from a single heart rate sensor. It would appear that Cardiogram has presented evidence to the contrary: https://blog.cardiogr.am/screening-for-hypertension-and-slee... If you disagree, make a specific criticism of their evidence. |