9 ms·

When you consider this came from research that was funded by Jawbone, Eight and that the author has equity in InCarda, it makes me question the authenticity of

When you consider this came from research that was funded by Jawbone, Eight and that the author has equity in InCarda, it makes me question the authenticity of their claims. Can someone from this field corroborate what is claimed?

vo2maxer 7y ago
The review by Dr. Marcus, a cardiologist [1], refers to a study funded by Apple and published in The New England Journal of Medicine [2]. His main point is that “insufficient evidence exists to recommend atrial fibrillation (AF) screening in asymptomatic adults.” [3] There would be a significant number of alarmed users with false-positive results who would undergo costly additional evaluation and treatment where there may be of little benefit. It is troublesome, in his view, that “private industry has bypassed expert consensus to initiate screening for AF in the general population.” He adds that “this is an industry instigated inversion of the relationship between patients and physicians...” [4] Larry Husten at the Cardiobrief blog gives a good overview of some of the pitfalls [5]. [1] https://profiles.ucsf.edu/gregory.marcus https://profiles.ucsf.edu/gregory.marcus [2] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1901183 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1901183 [3] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2695678 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2695678 [4] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41569-019-0330-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41569-019-0330-y [5] http://www.cardiobrief.org/2019/11/13/what-can-we-learn-from-the-apple-heart-study/ http://www.cardiobrief.org/2019/11/13/what-can-we-learn-from...
- tinus_hn 7y 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.
  - vo2maxer 7y ago
    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 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1901183 [2] https://www.ajconline.org/article/S0002-91491301288-5/fulltext https://www.ajconline.org/article/S0002-91491301288-5/fullte... [3] http://www.cardiobrief.org/2019/11/13/what-can-we-learn-from-the-apple-heart-study/ http://www.cardiobrief.org/2019/11/13/what-can-we-learn-from... [4] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1913980 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1913980
    - tinus_hn 7y ago
      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!
- whelsemin 7y ago
  This is my humble opinion, but all doctor talk of "inversion of the relationship between patients and physicians" is complete quackery. We will see medicine change for the better over the next 10 years, but it will be a long road. First step is competition in medical education.
  - vo2maxer 7y ago
    What you’re saying is that evidence should not drive decisions in health care but rather industry marketing. And if this what you mean, how is it quackery to suggest that more studies are needed or that users need to be given more information on devices with such a significant rate of false-positives?
    - htk 7y ago
      You deformed his “humble opinion” into something completely different. There are other ways to expose your views, this one just looks like you have an axe to grind.
      - vo2maxer 7y ago
        Please, explain to me how I deformed it when they label “all doctor talk” of the “inversion of the relationship between patients and physicians” as quackery without any reasoned argument to support such “humble opinion.” The position in the original submission is straight forward: The study was funded by Apple to drive sales by people who generally don’t suffer with atrial fibrillation. Consequently, this will create unnecessary alarm in the worried well, who will undergo needless testing and possibly harmful therapy. There is already plenty of superfluous medical evaluations and treatments at a huge cost. Are we supposed to encourage this when it is clearly industry driven with little evidence in how it advances healthcare. If this is my ax to grind, so be it, but as a physician, shouldn’t I be cynically happy that more business will be coming my way?

vo2maxer 7y ago

The review by Dr. Marcus, a cardiologist [1], refers to a study funded by Apple and published in The New England Journal of Medicine [2]. His main point is that “insufficient evidence exists to recommend atrial fibrillation (AF) screening in asymptomatic adults.” [3] There would be a significant number of alarmed users with false-positive results who would undergo costly additional evaluation and treatment where there may be of little benefit. It is troublesome, in his view, that “private industry has bypassed expert consensus to initiate screening for AF in the general population.” He adds that “this is an industry instigated inversion of the relationship between patients and physicians...” [4] Larry Husten at the Cardiobrief blog gives a good overview of some of the pitfalls [5]. [1] https://profiles.ucsf.edu/gregory.marcus https://profiles.ucsf.edu/gregory.marcus [2] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1901183 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1901183 [3] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2695678 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2695678 [4] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41569-019-0330-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41569-019-0330-y [5] http://www.cardiobrief.org/2019/11/13/what-can-we-learn-from-the-apple-heart-study/ http://www.cardiobrief.org/2019/11/13/what-can-we-learn-from...

tinus_hn 7y 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.
- vo2maxer 7y ago
  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 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1901183 [2] https://www.ajconline.org/article/S0002-91491301288-5/fulltext https://www.ajconline.org/article/S0002-91491301288-5/fullte... [3] http://www.cardiobrief.org/2019/11/13/what-can-we-learn-from-the-apple-heart-study/ http://www.cardiobrief.org/2019/11/13/what-can-we-learn-from... [4] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1913980 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1913980
  - tinus_hn 7y ago
    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!
whelsemin 7y ago
This is my humble opinion, but all doctor talk of "inversion of the relationship between patients and physicians" is complete quackery. We will see medicine change for the better over the next 10 years, but it will be a long road. First step is competition in medical education.
- vo2maxer 7y ago
  What you’re saying is that evidence should not drive decisions in health care but rather industry marketing. And if this what you mean, how is it quackery to suggest that more studies are needed or that users need to be given more information on devices with such a significant rate of false-positives?
  - htk 7y ago
    You deformed his “humble opinion” into something completely different. There are other ways to expose your views, this one just looks like you have an axe to grind.
    - vo2maxer 7y ago
      Please, explain to me how I deformed it when they label “all doctor talk” of the “inversion of the relationship between patients and physicians” as quackery without any reasoned argument to support such “humble opinion.” The position in the original submission is straight forward: The study was funded by Apple to drive sales by people who generally don’t suffer with atrial fibrillation. Consequently, this will create unnecessary alarm in the worried well, who will undergo needless testing and possibly harmful therapy. There is already plenty of superfluous medical evaluations and treatments at a huge cost. Are we supposed to encourage this when it is clearly industry driven with little evidence in how it advances healthcare. If this is my ax to grind, so be it, but as a physician, shouldn’t I be cynically happy that more business will be coming my way?