> Only around 10 percent of people who saw a doctor at the Mayo Clinic after noticing an abnormal pulse reading on their watch were eventually diagnosed with a cardiac condition... it may take up doctor and patient time unnecessarily.
I... utterly fail to see the problem here.
If it were 0.01% that ended up having a problem, then OK I can see how this is not a signal worth paying attention to. But 10%?! 10% is huge.
Plus, there's no evidence of any harmful side effects here -- it's not like people are being sent into unnecessary surgery because of what their Apple Watch said. They're simply being given normal tests.
Now if Apple can make this more accurate, then great. But if this saves even a few lives, then the fact that 9 out of 10 warnings are false positives still seems extremely worth it, no?
The article paints this as a failure, when all I'm seeing is success.
I... utterly fail to see the problem here.
If it were 0.01% that ended up having a problem, then OK I can see how this is not a signal worth paying attention to. But 10%?! 10% is huge.
Plus, there's no evidence of any harmful side effects here -- it's not like people are being sent into unnecessary surgery because of what their Apple Watch said. They're simply being given normal tests.
Now if Apple can make this more accurate, then great. But if this saves even a few lives, then the fact that 9 out of 10 warnings are false positives still seems extremely worth it, no?
The article paints this as a failure, when all I'm seeing is success.