SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
[...] Atrial fibrillation is the most common heart rhythm disorder. One in four middle-aged adults in Europe and the US will develop atrial fibrillation. 2 It causes 20-30% of all strokes and raises the risk of premature death, but outlook improves dramatically with oral anticoagulation therapy. Undiagnosed atrial fibrillation is common and many patients remain untreated. Opportunistic screening is recommended in over-65s, but has time, logistical, and resource demands.
DIGITAL-AF examined the feasibility and effectiveness of screening for atrial fibrillation with a smartphone app medically certified in the EU to detect the condition. The app was made freely available by publishing an access token in a local newspaper. Within 48 hours, 12,328 adults had scanned the token and enrolled in the study.
Source: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180825081735.htm
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Tuesday August 28 2018, @12:23PM (3 children)
this is probably the most underated thing about those watches we all(?) wear.
Only by collection physical data every minute of the day, will we be able to predict (and treat) disorders.
Why is this program not directed at a thing that *actually* measures the heartrate?
It would probably be a better use of funds to by a skip load of cheap "fitbits" that just measure HR....
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday August 28 2018, @02:35PM (2 children)
Actually there are lots of things by which disorders are predicted and treated by, and constant collection is not necessary to the vast majority of them. Afib can be serious, certainly, but many people live with it for indefinite periods of time - it often isn't nearly as serious as ventricular fibrilation.
The program isn't directed at measuring heartrate because smartwatches already do that function - this is more like a single channel ECG. It's not the first to break ground in the field, either.
Monitoring HR alone says some things, but virtually nothing as a single datum about how your heart is actually functioning. Many people live perfectly normal lives with tachycardia or bradycardia. Supertachycardia will invariably produce symptoms and requires an ECG to know precisely what type of supertachycardic rhythm is being engaged (though SVT is most common). That's a medical emergency.
Me... I wonder what it does to your battery life to have a constantly running data recorder going. Maybe nothing. But battery life is utterly predicated on what is running, how often, and with what hardware consumption. My Fossil WristPDA used to require nightly charging with ordinary use and if I used the watch the way I now use my phone it would be dead before the workday was over.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Wednesday August 29 2018, @12:48PM (1 child)
as a "new to running" person, I have collected a couple of years of running HR data - via the chest strap. The patterns are clear of individual stress and performance.
The newer devices have more efficient monitors, and are starting to edge into days, even with constant monitoring.
My thought is, we don't know what we'll find until we do the experiment.
I'll guess we'll have to wait and see...
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday August 29 2018, @03:57PM
True. If it doesn't hurt to collect the data, collect the data! But you've also added a little and important bit - your data is collected while you're running. That says something more than "it's just a pulse rate" :) Where I was going at was that since Afib can happen even in an otherwise fine pulse (and it takes an ECG to detect them), it's a good indicator. Not necessarily a diagnosis.
But by all means, if you make sense out of the data you get, go for it!
This sig for rent.