Apple's ResearchKit did in 24 hours what would normally take 50 medical centers a year

[Bonesy]

I think this sounds great "on paper", but not for practical use. As the story iterates my own thoughts: The data gathered from the devices is simply not equivalent and/or as use-able as data gathered conventionally. Between the forced preset of economical stature in regards to data source, and the poorly focused set of options, other than raw GPS data; these data values can only be used as a PoC, and not nearly as helpful as a proper survey. 

 

Although it might be a step in the right direction(debatable), until the quality of the data can match the quality of traditional data, this is largely meaningless. 

[dalekphalm]

I have read research that puts iphones in the hands of managers, directors, and medical professionals.  These are all people with higher education and higher incomes.  They coincidentally are all people who want to buy a device that just works,  does what it is supposed to do and they don't mind paying more for it.  Android seems to be in the realm of engineers, software developers and hands on people.  I don't think the cost of the item has anything to do with the general user demographic.

Interesting findings I must admit.

 

Anecdotal and insufficient data. I think the stereotype that Android users are mostly engineers and software developers is a very outdated one. Was probably true in the beginning, but these days it's more common for your average soccer mom to own an Android device than her owning an iPhone.

 

 

I agree with you that the cost of a single item can't be used as a measurement of how wealthy someone is. I have seen plenty of people who own pretty luxurious cars and watches, but live in really bad 1 room apartments and can barely afford food. They probably do this to appear wealthier than they really are. If someone can save up to get a car, then I am sure a lot of people can save up to get a high end smartphone even though they probably should be spending the money on other things.

I agree, a single item can't reliably tell you about the rest of it. You bring up some excellent posts. I've known people who owned nice classic Jag's but lived in a Trailer Park, for example. Plus you hear about inner-city kids buying Cadillac Escalade's (Maybe not so much these days? It was super popular in the early 2000's) but they couldn't even afford to put gas in them most weeks.

 

There's always someone going against the norm or doing something that isn't logical.

 

That wasn't anecdotal, that was from articles I have read:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddhixon/2014/04/10/what-kind-of-person-prefers-an-iphone/

http://www.emarketer.com/Article/US-Smartphone-OS-Race-Still-Close-Men-Younger-Users-Favor-Android/1009961

Will have to do read those, thanks for the links!

 

This is just from my own anecdotal experience:

I work in a clinic of 14 surgeons, all at the top of their fields and all who have more degrees and awards and plaques mounted on their walls (each) than I've had years alive on this planet. They are THAT good. 

 

What do they all use? iPhones and MacBooks. 

 

What does that mean? Fuck all. It could mean they simply like the ecosystem. It could mean they just liked the phone/laptop. It could mean they appreciate the "idiot friendly" design of Apple products and OSs, since they have far better stuff to do in their day than wrestle with computer and phone use. 

 

Who knows? You can't correlate and imply causation with these things. I'm headed towards a MD and I've used every single OS on a near monthly basis. But that has little bearing on my economic status. ITs a damn phone. They all cost the same (especially in North America, where its all contracted). Even their laptops. Apple is expensive, yes. But so expensive that people who buy them usually belong to a different socioeconomic class? Hah. Thats a good. one. 

 

The only people who seem to get so worked up and upset over these nonsense statements are those who feel a need to overcompensate for something anyways. 

 

I was just as successful when I used my Lumia 920 as I am with my 6+. If I am supposed to become more successful since I can afford an iPhone, then shit. I must have missed that bonus. Where do I lodge my complaint? 

Agreed, in North America, almost everyone buys their phones on Contract. Sure, a Flagship phone will cost $100 or $200 out of pocket, but that's attainable by pretty much anyone, compared to spending $600-$800 or more out of pocket for an off contract phone.

 

You aren't making a point. You're ranting about nothing. If you think Stanford did the right thing why the hell are you arguing that their reference to this entire issue was "pointless" and "meaningless"?

 

All that has been claimed is that the average price of one thing is higher than the average price of another, therefore it's more likely that an owner of one will have more disposable income than the other, thus it follows that one is likely to be owned by people with a better job and a higher level of education (which, again, are themselves correlated).

 

I am assuming that you are getting butthurt because there is no other reason for this to not make sense to you. In a world where an iPhone 6 costs £539, and an Android phone can cost anything from £30 to £600, the only reason to argue what you are arguing is because you have extrapolated wildly and have assumed that someone is calling Android users stupid, (which is precisely what the "wtf" comment was getting at)

 

Speak for yourself about getting off topic. I, at any rate, am talking about the validity of the data collected in the OP. You might be enjoying a rambling tirade of nonsense...

Again, Stanford never made those claims. I can't reiterate that enough it seems. Stanford simply acknowledged potential bias. The author of the article on 9to5mac was the person that "interjected" the reference to that one study about income vs phone. Simple as that. If you can't see my point, then I can't help you. If you simply disagree with my point, then fine. Disagree with it. You don't seem to understand what I'm saying, however.

 

Stanford didn't say any of that. It was the author of the article, who linked a random Study. The study might even be valid (But I would only take it as anecdotal at best), but in my opinion, it has little relevance to the Medical Study performed by Stanford.

 

I think this sounds great "on paper", but not for practical use. As the story iterates my own thoughts: The data gathered from the devices is simply not equivalent and/or as use-able as data gathered conventionally. Between the forced preset of economical stature in regards to data source, and the poorly focused set of options, other than raw GPS data; these data values can only be used as a PoC, and not nearly as helpful as a proper survey. 

 

Although it might be a step in the right direction(debatable), until the quality of the data can match the quality of traditional data, this is largely meaningless. 

I agree with the lack of practical-hands on data being an issue. I don't see this as a replacement, but rather as a complement to a standard study. I see it like this: You get your 500-1000 (or whatever number you can) of in-person participants, and then you augment those participants with this program, plus supplement the study as a whole with additional input from extra participants that are only using the app.

 

Think of it like having a Baseline with the in-person participants, which can have their data verified by the app, then having the supplemental participants simply adding more data on top to see how the trend holds in larger numbers.

[MrDynamicMan]

I'm really not so sure about this, don't take anything a say for granted, but a classic example bad science is the demographics issue. So your testing whether people who early mainly meat Vs people who eat mainly grain over X time, and how this effects their health. The people who eat mainly meat will very much have a different lifestyle than the ones who grain, thus skewing the effects greatly. The same thing will happen here, but with the iPhone user demographic, maybe not as much but there will still be a big effect.

[kacper]

I'm still waiting for smart band that would measure life signals and in case of emergency , it would send geografical locations to hospital.

[Victorious Secret]

 

 

I agree with the lack of practical-hands on data being an issue. I don't see this as a replacement, but rather as a complement to a standard study. I see it like this: You get your 500-1000 (or whatever number you can) of in-person participants, and then you augment those participants with this program, plus supplement the study as a whole with additional input from extra participants that are only using the app.

 

Think of it like having a Baseline with the in-person participants, which can have their data verified by the app, then having the supplemental participants simply adding more data on top to see how the trend holds in larger numbers.

 

People are seriously underestimating how useful this kind of data can be, especially in North America. Like you said before, phones are on contracts. Everyone and their mother from all walks to life can afford and does afford 99 dollar to 299 dollar phones on a contract. This isn't some deal breaker. 

 

Data like this is a goldmine for expanding your reach and figuring out exactly where to focus your efforts. I think the researchers at STANFORD very well accounted for any biases that could be introduced by using methods like this. Its Stanford. The golden standard for all research is to try and minimize bias influences. And this is something a random lab in the middle of nowhere would do. Stanford, in collaboration with Apple in pushing this new platform certainly knows better than...well...everyone else on the internet who doesn't have a PhD and doesn't do research of this scale. 

[dalekphalm]

People are seriously underestimating how useful this kind of data can be, especially in North America. Like you said before, phones are on contracts. Everyone and their mother from all walks to life can afford and does afford 99 dollar to 299 dollar phones on a contract. This isn't some deal breaker. 

 

Data like this is a goldmine for expanding your reach and figuring out exactly where to focus your efforts. I think the researchers at STANFORD very well accounted for any biases that could be introduced by using methods like this. Its Stanford. The golden standard for all research is to try and minimize bias influences. And this is something a random lab in the middle of nowhere would do. Stanford, in collaboration with Apple in pushing this new platform certainly knows better than...well...everyone else on the internet who doesn't have a PhD and doesn't do research of this scale. 

 

Oh I agree that this is unprecedented and great news for researchers.

 

I just don't think it can fully supplant something like an actual physical cross-examination by researchers. The App can only tell you so many things (Until they introduce a blood screening sensor, etc... It'll happen eventually!)

[Victorious Secret]

Oh I agree that this is unprecedented and great news for researchers.

 

I just don't think it can fully supplant something like an actual physical cross-examination by researchers. The App can only tell you so many things (Until they introduce a blood screening sensor, etc... It'll happen eventually!)

 

Oh it'll be the next push for these guys, implementing the same level of baseline screening tech that a nurse would put you through during a screening trial for a study. We're getting really close to it. 

If I could have a secured way to get 2000 people to engage in a baseline survey that didn't require me to go through the hoops I have to go through now, oh boy would I do it and be happy for it. 

[hph6203]

~10% of US adults do not have a cell phone at all, ~30% don't own a smartphone, of those smartphone owners not all of them pay for a phone service that offers subsidies on smart phones (cricket wireless). You are naive if you don't think there's a noticeable gap between the income, education and health between your typical flagship smartphone owner and a large segment the US population.

The cost of a $99 subsidized phone is not limited to the cost of the phone, and there is a large segment of the population that cannot, or refuses to pay for a smartphone contract. Which means they aren't paying for the ultimate price of an iPhone (average price of $680), or the ultimate average price of an Android phone ($280). They're paying $99 or less, off contract for a pay as you go plan.

To say that flagship smartphone owners are a representative subset of the whole is ignoring at least 30% of the population, and likely much more.

With that said, with appropriate questions and tests its a valuable tool for researchers, because they can minimize the effect of those biases on the data. Also, this is just the initial launch of ResearchKit, and I'd be surprised if Google and Microsoft don't launch a version of their own for researchers to use in tandem with ResearchKit. The use of smartphones will also become more ubiquitous as time passes.

It's not ideal, but it's certainly not worthless either.

[mr moose]

This is just from my own anecdotal experience:

I work in a clinic of 14 surgeons, all at the top of their fields and all who have more degrees and awards and plaques mounted on their walls (each) than I've had years alive on this planet. They are THAT good. 

 

What do they all use? iPhones and MacBooks. 

 

What does that mean? Fuck all. It could mean they simply like the ecosystem. It could mean they just liked the phone/laptop. It could mean they appreciate the "idiot friendly" design of Apple products and OSs, since they have far better stuff to do in their day than wrestle with computer and phone use. 

 

Who knows? You can't correlate and imply causation with these things. I'm headed towards a MD and I've used every single OS on a near monthly basis. But that has little bearing on my economic status. ITs a damn phone. They all cost the same (especially in North America, where its all contracted). Even their laptops. Apple is expensive, yes. But so expensive that people who buy them usually belong to a different socioeconomic class? Hah. Thats a good. one. 

 

The only people who seem to get so worked up and upset over these nonsense statements are those who feel a need to overcompensate for something anyways. 

 

I was just as successful when I used my Lumia 920 as I am with my 6+. If I am supposed to become more successful since I can afford an iPhone, then shit. I must have missed that bonus. Where do I lodge my complaint? 

 

Exactly,  I am not trying to give a reason, just saying that's the way it seems to be.    This type of social research (working out who buys what), is meant for marketeers and those interested in anthropology (like me).  If we try to determine what that means  without all the proper checks and balances we are doomed to failure from the beginning.  All I wanted to do was point out that it wasn't Stanford that just randomly decided this was the case, but that it was based actual surveys,  Even though I pose my own theories on why, I'll leave that for another conversation.