Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by tinus_hn 2364 days ago
Mr Huston in the last link is complaining that there were too many subjects in the test and that the test was pretty expensive for Apple. How am I to take this seriously? It’s just another Apple hater.
1 comments

In regards to your observation, Husten’s review notes that the study [1] included subjects where the incidence and prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) is low [2], and given the study’s design flaws, its findings turned out to be largely irrelevant except as a marketing tool with relatively negligible costs for Apple [3].

I don’t know if Mr. Husten is an Apple hater, but it would be more interesting if you challenged his actual arguments including those in the study’s accompanying opinion piece: “The uncomfortable fact is that our personal health data have considerable financial value to those who want to use them in the myriad marketplaces connected to our $3.7 trillion health economy.” [4]

[1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1901183

[2] https://www.ajconline.org/article/S0002-91491301288-5/fullte...

[3] http://www.cardiobrief.org/2019/11/13/what-can-we-learn-from...

[4] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1913980

I’m not sure how the fact that data has value is a comment on Apple Health studies. The health data collected in these studies is not connected on contact information, so the only thing a user can be profiled as is as a person who participates in the study. The author is quick to dismiss this data that first was worth billions as worthless though.

> Now the same sort of breathless optimism about technology is infecting medicine and healthcare.

Clearly the author made up his mind before he even started.

> In other words, nearly half a million people were required to identify a few hundred people with AF.

Or, the study identified a few hundred people with AF, using nothing but the watch they were going to wear anyway. Impressive!