![]() ![]() The devices were better at measuring data collected during cycling than walking.He described some of the early wearables as "random number generators." Ashley said that users can rely on this data-point. Heart rate measurements have improved over the years.Ashley said the error rate should be less than 10 percent when these devices are used in non-medical settings. The devices were consistently terrible at tracking energy expenditure, with the most accurate device off by an average of 27 percent.The Apple Watch was a clear winner in both heart rate and energy expenditure, while Samsung's device reported the highest error rates. The researchers compared the devices to FDA-approved gold standards, rather than to each other. So Ashley's team evaluated 7 devices - the Apple Watch, Basis Peak, Fitbit Surge, Microsoft Band, Mio Alpha 2, PulseOn and Samsung Gear S2 - with a group of 60 volunteers using rather than using treadmills and stationary cycles in the lab. But many patients will still use them on a regular basis. These devices aren't regulated, as they aim to optimize health rather than to detect disease, so they're not held to the same standards as their medical device counterparts. "Anytime we get data from a patient via a device, we have questions about the accuracy," said Euan Ashley, an associate professor at Stanford, who focuses on cardiovascular medicine. The researchers conducted a study to assess the quality of wearable trackers after finding a lack of data in peer-reviewed journals. Personal Loans for 670 Credit Score or Lower ![]() Personal Loans for 580 Credit Score or Lower Best Debt Consolidation Loans for Bad Credit ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |