[HN Gopher] How on-the-wrist sleep apnea detection works
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       How on-the-wrist sleep apnea detection works
        
       Author : brandonb
       Score  : 129 points
       Date   : 2024-09-09 17:21 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.empirical.health)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.empirical.health)
        
       | cromka wrote:
       | Considering they use accelerometer for it, nothing really stops
       | them from adding this feature to all Apple Watches, potentially
       | even the Series 1, right?
       | 
       | Reserving it to Series 10 and 9 really exposes their lack of
       | hardware innovation. I mean, we were talking about them measuring
       | glucose levels for years and this is what we get as a new
       | flagship feature?
        
         | brandonb wrote:
         | I suspect they also need oxygen saturation (introduced in the
         | Apple Watch Series 6 in 2020) in order to make their overall
         | sleep apnea detection algorithm work. Given that it only works
         | with the Series 9 or above, it's possible they're also using
         | the the temperature sensor as another input into their
         | algorithm.
        
           | jerlam wrote:
           | Did Apple resolve the patent issue that disabled oxygen
           | saturation in the Series 9?
           | 
           | Although it's possible that Sleep Apnea detection uses the
           | oxygen saturation sensor but doesn't show its results
           | directly.
        
             | brandonb wrote:
             | It wouldn't surprise me if they did the latter. The oxygen
             | saturation sensor is fundamentally just another optical
             | sensor with a different wavelength of light -- so if you
             | feed all three wavelengths, plus the accelerometer, into a
             | neural network, you may be able to pick up on oxygen-
             | related physiological signals without explicitly processing
             | an oxygen timeseries.
        
             | MBCook wrote:
             | No. I was very curious to see if it might be a last minute
             | thing where it came back but the pages for the series 10
             | clearly don't list it and if you use the comparison tool
             | it's highlighted as gone.
             | 
             | I hope it's just still disabled. It would suck for someone
             | to buy a new watch, the fix the dispute in 2 months, and
             | you never get the feature until you buy another new watch.
             | 
             | They're clearly not bending. I don't know if they've given
             | up or waiting on an appeal or maybe home a new
             | administration will tell the ITC to go away or what.
        
             | skygazer wrote:
             | They're still appealing, but the underlying patent expires
             | in 2028, so maybe they'll wait it out.
        
           | cromka wrote:
           | They explicitly only mentioned accelerometer. If they used
           | more sensors, in particular temperature sensor, it's hard to
           | imagine they wouldn't mention in, especially that it would
           | justify them limiting the feature to Series 9 and 10.
           | 
           | However, reading on PAT (Peripheral arterial tone) and
           | existing FDA-approved devices using that, they indeed use
           | oxygen but not temperature. See for example "WatchPAT ONE"
           | device.
        
             | dwighttk wrote:
             | Perhaps they aren't worried about justification
        
         | swatcoder wrote:
         | They absolutely could be segmenting features by generation even
         | if they could introduce them into earlier products and it's
         | pretty normal across the industry to do so, _but_ "well, it
         | seems to use the accelerometer" provides no evidence of that on
         | its own.
         | 
         | Without knowing more details about the implementation, it may
         | rely on combining data from other sensors as well, it may need
         | a certain frequency/resolution from a sensor that's not
         | available in earlier generations of hardware, it might place
         | too much demand on compute or power to maintain prior products'
         | expected behavior, etc
        
           | pdpi wrote:
           | > , it might place too much demand on compute or power to
           | maintain prior products' expected behavior, etc
           | 
           | Love it or hate it, this mentality of "the feature is
           | technically possible but we won't enable it because we're not
           | happy with the compromises it demands" is, by design, exactly
           | the sort of logic that Apple is known for.
        
         | mikestew wrote:
         | _nothing really stops them from adding this feature to all
         | Apple Watches..._
         | 
         | I'm confident there's more to it than just sensor availability.
         | Compute power for starters, as well as the fact that a Series 1
         | accelerometer may not have the necessary resolution, etc.
         | 
         |  _Reserving it to Series 10 and 9 really exposes their lack of
         | hardware innovation._
         | 
         | Ah, the ol' "Apple didn't build what I want, ergo, Apple
         | doesn't innovate" trope.
        
           | cromka wrote:
           | That's manipulative. I did not mention I expected anything in
           | particular. If anything, your defensive narrative makes you
           | come off as a fanboy.
        
         | a_vanderbilt wrote:
         | Sure it probably comes down to sensor specs, but the same
         | question can be asked about Apple Ingtelligence and the new
         | iPhones. If the model is in a private cloud, why is it
         | restricted to newer iPhones? Surely the preprocessing isn't so
         | intensive that only the latest iPhones can do it. It's
         | artificial segmentation in the interest of driving
         | (historically weakening) sales.
        
           | cromka wrote:
           | Yeah, I thought the same when they announced it. All in all,
           | I feel that artificial segmentation is more frequent than
           | ever and this can't be good indicator for their future
           | growth, can it?
        
             | a_vanderbilt wrote:
             | It's definitely a sign of the decline of hardware
             | innovation. It's not for lack of trying, however. Apple has
             | experimented with Touch Bars, VR, and LIDAR cameras,
             | largely to little effect. They just aren't disruptive
             | enough. So how then do they segment if not hardware?
             | Software.
             | 
             | I think that growth is going to slow no matter what they
             | do. Western and Japanese markets are saturated, and Chinese
             | markets (once most promising) are bringing fierce
             | competition both from local competition and the government.
        
           | MBCook wrote:
           | It's not all in a private cloud. Much is on device, and as we
           | all know AI stuff loves CPU and RAM.
           | 
           | They appear to have restricted it to 8 GB of RAM devices or
           | more (when those appear).
           | 
           | During The Talk Show interview at WWDC with John Gruber an
           | Apple exec (Joz?) said they did it because of user experience
           | issues, seeming implying speed.
           | 
           | And given how hard AI hits hardware I think that's relatively
           | believable.
        
         | diebeforei485 wrote:
         | Probably requires the newer generation accelerometer.
         | 
         | There are also other issues like power consumption overnight.
         | Older watches have smaller batteries and slow charging. People
         | will update the software, use the new features, and complain
         | that Apple software updates are killing the battery (waking up
         | to low battery plus slow charing means not being able to charge
         | up before leaving for work). This has the effect of Apple only
         | backporting new features if they don't consume too much
         | battery.
        
       | hartator wrote:
       | Is it released or they are waiting for fda approval?
       | 
       | Little unclear on macrumors.
        
         | peppertree wrote:
         | Waiting for fda.
        
       | tootie wrote:
       | I wouldn't put a ton of stock into this, but it could still be
       | useful. The WatchPAT device is purpose-built for this test and
       | includes a full fingertip oximeter and while it's FDA-approved,
       | it's still not very accurate. It's also a notoriously tricky
       | condition to diagnose and can't really be done just by looking at
       | numbers. I think there's value in the test being accessible to so
       | many more people, it will likely have a positive outcome on
       | detection and treatment, but I would not expect you to push a
       | button and get a confirmed diagnosis.
        
         | carlmr wrote:
         | >can't really be done just by looking at numbers
         | 
         | Depending on the numbers, why not?
         | 
         | If it's sensor accuracy a single night might not be enough, but
         | if it detects the condition averaging over a few weeks even
         | unreliable measurements can be made more reliable (given
         | they're just noisy).
        
           | tootie wrote:
           | Not a doctor, but I was given a diagnosis of severe sleep
           | apnea from an overnight in-lab study. Sought a second opinion
           | who decided it wasn't sleep apnea at all. AHI or T-90 are
           | convenient indicators, but pulmonologists will actually look
           | at the shape of your graph and listen to symptoms. All humans
           | are different and don't always conform to formulas.
           | 
           | That being said, your observation that a nightly watch user
           | can collect lots of data is an interesting one. If Apple (or
           | whoever) can come up a more heuristic analysis than just
           | computing AHI, they may end up with something better.
           | 
           | Also, not that you asked, but my sleep situation is a bit
           | complicated and I actually ended up with a CPAP anyway.
        
       | lysace wrote:
       | The gatekeeping in the CPAP field is so insane.
       | 
       | 1. Yes, we should regulate manufacturers intensely.
       | 
       | 2. No, we shouldn't regulate to whom companies should be allowed
       | to sell them. The defaults are good enough for most. Provide an
       | easy to use control for max pressure and people will figure it
       | out. Perhaps a knob?
       | 
       | I claim: During the past decade, the risk of being maltreated by
       | a personally set-up CPAP unit has been far, far smaller than the
       | risk of not being treated at all. (Ways to access these menus
       | have been been shared online for 10+ years, many use them.)
       | 
       | I wonder how many premature deaths happen every year because of
       | this - including secondary victims from traffic accidents.
       | 
       | These things should be $500 mass-market consumer units that you
       | pick up at Target, Walmart, etc.
        
         | a_vanderbilt wrote:
         | The health industry as a whole is insane. I support the use of
         | regulation and law where it ensures safety and efficacy but in
         | the U.S. it's currently a patent and legal minefield. So much
         | of it comes directly from special interests who want
         | gatekeeping to keep out new/disruptive competition.
        
           | smaudet wrote:
           | On the other side, as a consumer, I don't really want
           | "new/disruptive competition" - I want stability and a legal
           | guarantee my rights aren't being trod all over.
           | 
           | Large companies e.g. Google/Apple are just inherently
           | untrustworthy in this regards, smaller overseas ones are no
           | better (little to no regulation).
           | 
           | So please, no, stay the ** out of my health, thanks.
        
             | IOT_Apprentice wrote:
             | Google, Meta et al ARE FAR worse than anything might
             | complain about Apple. Between the sleep apnea and hearing
             | aid/hearing loss features you should be applauding these
             | features to the world. As a consumer I have family members
             | that will be leveraging these features immediately,
             | including myself.
        
             | a_vanderbilt wrote:
             | You can have gains in both today if certain issues are
             | addressed. Innovation doesn't mean a lack of liability or
             | responsibility for negligence.
             | 
             | In the U.S. you already have relatively minimal rights in
             | healthcare. Your stability and legal guarantees are already
             | compromised compared to your worldly neighbors. I too
             | distrust tech companies in healthcare due to their
             | differing motivations and organizational cultures.
             | 
             | I want the red tape to go away, but I also want strong
             | regulations and safety nets to ensure the drugs and devices
             | we are prescribing to people are effective and safe.
        
             | jjk166 wrote:
             | That's the cool thing about competition though - you can
             | continue spending your money on the current super expensive
             | option if you like. But others who may not value that
             | stability can choose something else.
             | 
             | Personally, I consider big pharma companies the absolute
             | least trustworthy, and I would never choose to purchase
             | anything from them if I would not literally otherwise die.
             | Regulations are not fundamentally bad, but the current
             | situation is obviously a case of regulatory capture.
        
         | jrockway wrote:
         | I'm just happy that the "service mode" screens are easy to get
         | to. Changing the ramp-up from 10 minutes to 45 minutes made a
         | big difference for me.
         | 
         | (I'm honestly surprised someone doesn't make the vendors
         | require a 1000 character passphrase that locks you out of the
         | device after 2 failed attempts.)
        
         | tlb wrote:
         | That should have been done from day 1. Now, however, there are
         | 1000s of doctors who make fat stacks prescribing CPAP machines,
         | and they'll fight tooth and nail to not lose their whole
         | business.
        
           | TMWNN wrote:
           | > Changing the ramp-up from 10 minutes to 45 minutes made a
           | big difference for me.
           | 
           | What change did you see in your sleep routine?
        
           | IOT_Apprentice wrote:
           | The car salesman who we worked with leasing our Lexus had a
           | bad flu and didn't wear his mask ONE night and died in his
           | sleep. We found out when we went back to the dealer. He left
           | wife and a special needs son. I lie my father before me
           | suffer from extreme sleep apnea. I want to make sure my sons
           | have the detection this will bring.
        
         | phickey wrote:
         | They don't advertise themselves as such, for obvious reasons,
         | but there is at least one online CPAP dealer in the US that
         | will sell to you without prescription verification. (Why should
         | I wait 3 months for an appointment, drive an hour round trip,
         | and $50 copay, to renew my rx so I can buy more masks, which
         | wear out after a year or two?)
        
           | jzig wrote:
           | What to search for? Link?
        
             | rootusrootus wrote:
             | I don't know who will do it without any kind of
             | prescription, but it's pretty trivial to get an at-home
             | test from someone like 1800cpap and they'll write a
             | prescription based on the results. I bet they have a nearly
             | 100% rate of writing prescriptions, given the obvious
             | conflict of interest.
        
               | bluGill wrote:
               | > I bet they have a nearly 100% rate of writing
               | prescriptions, given the obvious conflict of interest.
               | 
               | Even if they are honest I'd expect near 100% - people who
               | don't expect they have issues are not going to be getting
               | the at home test in the first place.
        
           | firesteelrain wrote:
           | I used Lofta and it was about $189ish. Then, I got the
           | subscription from them and bought my CPAP from CPAP.com using
           | my HSA.
        
         | binalpatel wrote:
         | Agreed with both - #1 especially:
         | https://www.propublica.org/article/philips-kept-warnings-abo...
        
         | simcop2387 wrote:
         | > 2. No, we shouldn't regulate to whom companies should be
         | allowed to sell them. The defaults are good enough for most.
         | Provide an easy to use control for max pressure and people will
         | figure it out.
         | 
         | I'm iffy on the machines themselves for this, mostly because
         | I'm just ignorant about the risks and potential issues. But
         | this absolutely should be the case for the consumable/wear
         | items that go along with it. There's been a lot of push-back on
         | retailers being able to sell things like the masks, the hoses,
         | filters, etc. to the public at large that can't be used without
         | a machine anyway.
         | 
         | > These things should be $500 mass-market consumer units.
         | 
         | Fundamentally yes. I'd be fine with it being something as
         | simple as the local pharmacy can keep them in the back and you
         | bring in the prescription from the doctor and they file it away
         | saying that you're allowed to buy/replace it if there's some
         | reasonable evidence that they need some modicum of control for
         | safety of people. It shouldn't be any harder than getting some
         | antibiotics.
         | 
         | As it is now I'm using a 10+ year old machine because I've
         | changed insurance companies multiple times since and my current
         | one wants a full sleep study before they'll sign off on
         | anything at all (like allow the doctor to prescribe or let me
         | order one). And they wouldn't tell me if they'd cover the sleep
         | study or not.
        
           | titusjohnson wrote:
           | > I'd be fine with it being something as simple as the local
           | pharmacy can keep them in the back and you bring in the
           | prescription from the doctor
           | 
           | Just curious, why do you think a Dr. should be involved at
           | all?
        
             | bluGill wrote:
             | You should have a Dr who keeps track of all your medical
             | information. I want my doctor to know each time I take an
             | Aspirin or put on a bandage. Most of the time those are
             | meaningless activities (and I don't tell my doctor), but
             | once in a while there is something more going on and I need
             | to be forced into the ER.
        
         | wilsonnb3 wrote:
         | I generally agree with you but even people with a prescription
         | who have sleep apnea have a lot of trouble using their CPAP
         | consistently and correctly, even after it is titrated by
         | professionals in an overnight session.
         | 
         |  _Some_ people obviously are capable of diagnosing and solving
         | their own medical problems and are willing to learn and do the
         | work but most people aren 't.
         | 
         | I don't think that opening up CPAPs to the masses would
         | suddenly "solve" sleep apnea, most people will still need to go
         | through a similar process that exists now.
         | 
         | Regulation that streamlines the involvement of insurance
         | providers would probably be enough IMO, they are the real
         | reason it is difficult to get a CPAP most of the time.
        
           | lysace wrote:
           | > Regulation that streamlines the involvement of insurance
           | providers would probably be enough IMO, they are the real
           | reason it is difficult to get a CPAP most of the time.
           | 
           | The obvious solution is to bypass the insurance providers.
           | 
           | Also: when it comes to fitting masks to faces and figuring
           | out the optimal pressure rates - these seem like pretty
           | obvious application of machine learning algorithms, don't you
           | think?
        
             | rootusrootus wrote:
             | > these seem like pretty obvious application of machine
             | learning algorithms, don't you think?
             | 
             | Anecdotally, my impression is that most CPAP users are
             | using APAPs at this point, like the very popular Resmed
             | AirSense 10. Titration amounts to giving it a pretty wide
             | range and letting the machine itself figure out the right
             | pressure. It's not a complex learning algorithm, but seems
             | to do the job.
        
               | wilsonnb3 wrote:
               | I think APAP's are more about comfort and less about
               | effectiveness, although making them more comfortable to
               | use does make them more effective.
               | 
               | The algorithm is more about detecting that you aren't
               | asleep and thus don't need the full pressure at the
               | moment and less about altering the target pressure
               | setting on the fly.
               | 
               | I could be wrong though, I use is a bipap which works a
               | bit differently than CPAP or APAP.
        
               | rootusrootus wrote:
               | I have personal experience with the Airsense 10 and it
               | doesn't detect sleep/awake, as far as I can tell. At
               | least not for me; it starts at low pressure, ramps up
               | over a set time to the bottom of the range, and then
               | adjusts as necessary. Low flow or an apnea event will get
               | it to increase the pressure. Sometimes if you are
               | breathing kinda slow lying there awake you can trip it up
               | and feel it start pulsing the pressure to get more air
               | moving.
               | 
               | To my understanding (no personal experience), Philips
               | APAPs have a different algorithm to try and achieve the
               | same goal, and are regarded as less aggressive about it
               | than Resmed.
               | 
               | There's also a new Resmed Airsense 11 out but I don't
               | know anything about it and what changed.
               | 
               | BiPAPs are definitely a different beast, for sure. My dad
               | used one of those. Not automatic at all, right? Constant
               | pressure, but different between inhale and exhale?
        
             | wilsonnb3 wrote:
             | > The obvious solution is to bypass the insurance
             | providers.
             | 
             | That is one solution but I think it would be better to make
             | it easier for people to go through the current process
             | rather than making them pay out of pocket (assuming that it
             | what you meant by "bypass the insurance providers").
             | 
             | Assuming that we aren't going to also fix the entire
             | American medical system, making it easier for people to use
             | the insurance they already have to get a medical device
             | they need seems like the best approach to me.
             | 
             | > Also: when it comes to fitting masks to faces and
             | figuring out the optimal pressure rates - these seem like
             | pretty obvious application of machine learning algorithms,
             | don't you think?
             | 
             | Yes but I don't think that means we should take the human
             | expert(s) out of the loop.
             | 
             | I rather quickly changed the pressure settings on my bipap
             | in the hidden menu after the titration but many, maybe
             | most, people aren't like me and need there to be someone
             | they can just say "this isn't working for me" to instead of
             | being left on their own.
        
         | renewiltord wrote:
         | Absolutely, but most safety departments will happily do low
         | probability kills over massive population over high probability
         | kills over low population. You can lose thousands to the former
         | to save 10s to the latter.
        
         | BeetleB wrote:
         | > During the past decade, the risk of being maltreated by a
         | personally set-up CPAP unit has been far, far smaller than the
         | risk of not being treated at all.
         | 
         | There have been over 500 _confirmed_ deaths due to the Philips
         | CPAP. The number of unconfirmed deaths would be an order of
         | magnitude higher, in my opinion.
         | 
         | Thing is, the CPAP issue could be argued for both sides:
         | 
         | "See how a small manufacturing defect could cause so many
         | deaths? We definitely need to regulate this heavily!"
         | 
         | OR
         | 
         | "See how many people died due to Phillips because they didn't
         | have alternatives?"
        
           | lysace wrote:
           | "1. Yes, we should regulate manufacturers intensely."
           | 
           | These were units prescribed by licensed people. The issue
           | here was the manufacturer.
           | 
           | As such I'm not sure what your complaint is.
        
             | BeetleB wrote:
             | > As such I'm not sure what your complaint is.
             | 
             | What made you think I was complaining?
        
               | lysace wrote:
               | > The number of unconfirmed deaths would be an order of
               | magnitude higher, in my opinion.
        
               | BeetleB wrote:
               | That's an estimate. Not a complaint.
        
               | lysace wrote:
               | Mkay.
        
           | rootusrootus wrote:
           | The Philips CPAP deaths were caused by a faulty machine, not
           | by anything the users did wrong. Whether it was bought OTC or
           | prescribed by a doctor would have no impact.
        
             | DebtDeflation wrote:
             | Not only that, but it wasn't a problem with the pressure
             | settings or anything related to the function of the device,
             | it was chunks of the sound deadening foam breaking off and
             | people inhaling them in their sleep.
        
         | eddieroger wrote:
         | I'd argue the problem is gatekeeping access to medicine, since
         | I don't think this is unique to CPAP. It should be easy to get
         | in to a doctor, receive a test and diagnosis for sleep apnea
         | (or anything), and proceed to treatment. Regulation is an after
         | effect of the system. Maybe sane defaults are good most of the
         | time, but no-one should be in a spot where they have to rely on
         | defaults for care.
        
         | maxglute wrote:
         | Yeah you should be able to rent them instead of wasting months
         | diagnosising or trying to find time in a sleep lab. Take it
         | home for a whirl, if you sleep much better, and other QoL
         | indexes improves, congradulations.
        
           | bluGill wrote:
           | The machines themselves should be able to figure this out.
           | Automation is good.
        
       | abtinf wrote:
       | I've always wished I could put Apple Watch into a "constant
       | oxygen monitor mode" for sleep. That seems to be the obvious way
       | to assess sleep apnea.
       | 
       | Anyone know why that isn't the method?
        
         | a_vanderbilt wrote:
         | If I had to venture a guess, maybe it's an industry regulation
         | or power usage issue. Simply being able to assess sleep apnea
         | isn't enough, it has to pass the regulatory burdens as well.
        
         | zwily wrote:
         | They still don't have the regular oxygen monitor mode back yet
         | because of a patent dispute. That might be part of it.
        
           | tptacek wrote:
           | That's only in the US, right?
           | 
           | (My flimsy understanding is that blood oxygen measurement is
           | how at-home sleep studies work?)
        
             | jrockway wrote:
             | At-home sleep studies measure heart rate (maybe ekg, some
             | probe is on your skin), blood oxygen, sound, and the
             | direction of gravity relative to your testing device (to
             | classify results by "back", "side", "prone", etc.)
             | 
             | I did one of these and it was the worst night of sleep I
             | ever had. It's somewhat invasive. Meanwhile, I sleep with
             | my watch every night with no problems.
        
               | tptacek wrote:
               | Interesting. I keep meaning to get one done. Probes don't
               | seem like _that_ big a deal?
        
               | twojacobtwo wrote:
               | I think this depends on your doctor/clinic and where you
               | are. The last one I took home just had an oxygen sensor
               | and the skin probe/patch. The doctor said they get (hand
               | wavey) 95%+ of the same diagnostic capability from the
               | simpler setup and far fewer claims of poor quality sleep
               | caused by the equipment.
        
               | renewiltord wrote:
               | Amusingly my Apple Watch pulse ox showed low so I did a
               | sleep study. It's invasive, but it plugs into your
               | nostrils (and in my case held them open). Slept like a
               | baby. Next day 99% was the lowest reading. No problem.
               | Now I use these sleep strips from this company called
               | Intake. Sleep well. Holds nose open. I have a deviated
               | septum, apparently. I think it's from falling off a tree
               | onto my nose as a child, and being hit in the face by
               | basketball numerous times. But probably not.
               | 
               | What was funny was that at-home sleep study was damned
               | good sleep because it held my nose open!
        
         | cromka wrote:
         | PAT uses oxygen, so they actually do use exactly that.
        
         | swatcoder wrote:
         | There's a ton of cleverness involved in keeping an extremely
         | compact device with radios and sensors running for tens of
         | hours on a tiny battery while making it seem like it's always
         | awake and ready to go when you need it to be.
         | 
         | But the reality is that everything that needs any kind of power
         | is being aggressively idled down and time sliced and being made
         | sample-based as can be gotten away with. You can easily get a
         | sense of this with heart rate monitoring, if you dig into Apple
         | Health and observe the pattern of samples it takes.
         | 
         | Almost certainly, running the sensor at such a high frequency
         | that you could call it "constant" would drain the battery long
         | before you woke up.
        
         | runjake wrote:
         | 1. Because of the lawsuit around the pulse oximeter
         | intellectual property, as other commenters mentioned.
         | 
         | 2. That would require more battery life than the Apple Watch
         | offers.
         | 
         | There are third-party options that do constant monitoring that
         | either directly or indirectly support Apple Health. You'll need
         | some additional intelligence, in the form of an app or
         | something, to analyze that data. WatchOS won't do it at
         | present.
        
       | GaggiX wrote:
       | The new Apple Watch 10 has an 18-hour battery life, so if you use
       | it while you sleep, you won't have much left.
       | 
       | I have no idea how some people can charge their smartwatch 1 or
       | more times a day.
        
         | smelendez wrote:
         | People probably use it principally as a fitness (and sleep?)
         | tracker, and charge it while they work
        
           | GaggiX wrote:
           | I mean it's still a watch so hopefully people are going to
           | use it as a watch.
        
         | a_vanderbilt wrote:
         | I find that integrating it into my routine made my current
         | watch (SE1) battery a non-issue. I wear it starting in the
         | morning, charge it on the way to work, and then to bed. Repeat
         | ad infinitum. Battery usage at night is way lower in my
         | experience, and it usually survives til morning or close to it.
        
         | jerlam wrote:
         | I used to charge my watch every time I took a shower, which was
         | every morning. Never had to think about battery life or
         | charging the watch "out of band". But then again, it wasn't an
         | Apple Watch.
        
         | xyzAbc_ wrote:
         | It is a non-issue for me with the Apple Watch 9. It's charged
         | super quick e.g. if the battery is low after waking up you can
         | plug it in do your morning routine and pick it up. Vice versa
         | in the evening before going to sleep.
         | 
         | Also did some bike packing this year and charging it with a
         | power bank was also not an issue. At one point my power bank
         | was empty and my apple watch ran out of power as well - this
         | has been the only time I whined for more battery life.
        
         | 4fterd4rk wrote:
         | I keep the charger plugged into my computer. I slap the watch
         | onto the charger every morning as I drink my coffee and read my
         | e-mails/news. It's... not difficult to imagine...
        
         | tstrimple wrote:
         | I picked the Apple Watch Ultra mainly for the extended battery
         | life. I charge it 15 minutes or so every other day. One of the
         | more useful features I've discovered is it will give you a low
         | battery warning if it detects that you need to charge before
         | bed to maintain overnight power rather than just a fixed
         | percent based warning. That's made it very easy to keep it
         | topped up for tracking my abysmal sleep.
        
         | jghn wrote:
         | I can only speak for my S7 but with the fast charging mode it
         | doesn't take long. My routine is I wake up, take off my watch,
         | scan my phone for a bit, and take a shower. Almost every day
         | it's fully charged by that point.
        
           | MBCook wrote:
           | The S9 was 80% in 45 minutes. The S10 is now 30 minutes.
           | 
           | A nice jump but not earth shattering.
        
       | runjake wrote:
       | I'm not an qualified expert, but I spend a lot of time reading
       | about and using this stuff and I'm extremely skeptical sleep
       | apnea detection is very accurate without the pulse oximeter
       | functionality.
       | 
       | But gosh, I hope this is accurate across the Watch's wide user
       | base.
       | 
       | I wouldn't say it's likely, but I do wonder if the pulse oximeter
       | is being used surreptitiously. In any case, if you _could_ use
       | the pulse oximeter, this functionality would immediately become
       | much more powerful.
        
         | rootusrootus wrote:
         | IIRC the pulse oximeter isn't all that useful for sleep apnea
         | detection anyway, because on the watch it does not run
         | continuously. Just takes measurements every X minutes. I
         | _think_ the oxygen level drop happens on a short enough
         | timescale that you need the continuous monitoring to pick up on
         | it.
        
           | runjake wrote:
           | I think the pulse oximeter would be most helpful in concert
           | with the accelerometer, as described in the article.
        
           | TechDebtDevin wrote:
           | Watch Sp02 detection is usually at rather long intervals to
           | conserve battery and typically have not resulted in any sort
           | of detection of low 02 (in my experience, I have very bad
           | sleep apnea)compared to a pretty dependable and accurate $30
           | on the finger oximeter.
        
         | m463 wrote:
         | > sleep apnea detection
         | 
         | I don't think it has to be as accurate as other things like
         | blood glucose levels, because with those people might use the
         | results to inject insulin.
         | 
         | Detecting sleep apnea might be more like afib detection. It
         | just tells someone they should be checked out.
        
       | jrockway wrote:
       | This is a neat feature. I read Reddit and r/applewatch shows up
       | in my feed a lot. 99% of the questions are "do I have sleep
       | apnea?" At least the watch can give them my cut-n-paste response
       | "you should talk to your doctor about a sleep study" now.
        
       | breck wrote:
       | If you're interested in this, I'd recommend reading the 1870
       | [public domain] book "Shut Your Mouth and Save your Life".
       | 
       | Internet Archive has it: https://archive.org/details/b28114450
       | 
       | Also look into "mouth taping".
        
         | VeejayRampay wrote:
         | mouth taping is dangerous for many reasons, you should not be
         | advocating it in a public forum
        
           | breck wrote:
           | You are right, on the list of things that are dangerous, you
           | would find mouth taping, probably right next to using a fork.
        
             | mikestew wrote:
             | You're right, medical advice from the 1870s and TikTok
             | videos, what could go wrong?
             | 
             | But I did "look into 'mouth taping'" as you suggested, and
             | I'll bet half the page titles were "Mouth-taping: is it
             | safe?" or "...does it work?" At what point does
             | Betteridge's Law of Headlines[0] kick in?
             | 
             | [0]
             | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
        
               | breck wrote:
               | > You're right, medical advice from the 1870s and TikTok
               | videos, what could go wrong?
               | 
               | Have you read the book? Do you think I'd be recommending
               | something that didn't have a very strong dataset backing
               | it?
               | 
               | > At what point does Betteridge's Law of Headlines[0]
               | kick in?
               | 
               | Nothing is easier to manipulate than digital symbols.
               | Thus, when talking about patterns one finds in digital
               | symbols, one much be very very careful to build a
               | trusthworthy dataset. Do you have a trusthworthy dataset
               | on Betterridge's headlines?
        
               | wizzwizz4 wrote:
               | > Do you really think someone would do that? Just go on
               | the internet and tell lies?
               | 
               | -- Buster Baxter (written by Matt Steinglass, 2005)
               | 
               | People make stuff up, especially online. If you expect
               | others to believe you about your "very strong dataset",
               | you should _provide_ that very strong dataset (complete
               | with provenance).
        
               | breck wrote:
               | Did you miss the very first thread, where I provided a
               | link to the book containing the dataset, which came out
               | 100 years before "online" invented?
        
         | wilsonnb3 wrote:
         | You want to at least give a brief overview as to why I should
         | trust medical advice from a book written before germ theory was
         | widely accepted?
         | 
         | This has all the hallmarks of quackery.
        
           | breck wrote:
           | > why I should trust medical advice from a book written
           | before germ theory was widely accepted?
           | 
           | Why do you think how to live healthy is a modern invention?
           | Don't you think people had to figure that out ages ago, or
           | else we wouldn't be here?
        
             | wilsonnb3 wrote:
             | Because medical science was in its infancy in 1870 and you
             | should only trust medical advice from then if it is
             | obvious, like don't light yourself on fire, or it has been
             | substantiated and backed up with peer reviewed science at
             | some point in the last 150 years.
             | 
             | Your argument is just a mix of the appeal to nature fallacy
             | and noble savage trope that people use to justify all sorts
             | of medical treatments with no proven benefits.
        
               | breck wrote:
               | > no proven benefits.
               | 
               | The Romans had great health. Proof: here we are thousands
               | of years later alive and using their letters.
        
         | vlachen wrote:
         | I don't mouth-tape, and I use a CPAP. However, since I prefer
         | the nasal cushion type, I did run into issues with my partner
         | regarding my mouth falling open and horrible "pumping air
         | through your sinuses" noises emanating from my face hole.
         | Instead of spending more from the home health shop, I just
         | grabbed headband that came in some past 5K race bag, and I
         | strap it around my head prior to the CPAP head gear. In my
         | particular case, that very slight amount of pressure keeps my
         | mouth closed (and spouse happy.) I have to wonder if just using
         | the chin-strap would be enough to turn off the damnable
         | machine. Given the results with the chin strap, I have
         | considered mouth taping, but I'm not about to shave just for
         | that test.
        
           | breck wrote:
           | > I'm not about to shave
           | 
           | I mouthtape and I got a full beard! Just use the 3M medical
           | tape from Walgreens.
           | 
           | I don't do it every night, but I do it on occasion. Used to
           | do it more. I find it's helped me just sleep mouth closed as
           | normal now.
        
           | code_biologist wrote:
           | Sleepy me tends to rip off things like headbands.
           | 
           | I have a beard and use GrifGrips sports tape to mouth tape.
           | I've found the level of adhesiveness to be a perfect balance
           | of strength and removability. Not the cheapest, but quality
           | stuff.
        
         | yareally wrote:
         | You mean the crazy theory this guy came up with after observing
         | how Native Americans breathe through their noses?
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Catlin#Observations_on_...
        
       | pjohri wrote:
       | I used a PAT device that showed mild apnea.
       | 
       | I then used an at home sleep study that came back negative.
        
       | eh_why_not wrote:
       | _> Undiagnosed sleep apnea affects more than 23.5 million people
       | in the US alone, leading to $150B of wasted medical spend every
       | year._
       | 
       | What do they mean by "wasted medical spend" here?
       | 
       | (1) Patients incorrectly spending money on a misdiagnosis, or (2)
       | apnea solution providers not making money off people when they
       | could?
        
         | brandonb wrote:
         | (OP here) a third category: downstream complications of sleep
         | apnea, primarily car crashes and heart attacks. Diagnosing and
         | treating people with undiagnosed sleep apnea would prevent
         | these entirely, which is obviously much healthier for the
         | person and reduces medical cost for the entire system
         | (including the patient themselves for co-pays, taxpayers for
         | government costs, etc).
        
           | eh_why_not wrote:
           | Thanks, I think it would be informative if you put this
           | spelling out in the article. People like myself not immersed
           | in health fields won't immediately know what you mean without
           | it.
        
             | brandonb wrote:
             | Just updated the article to spell that out. Thanks for the
             | feedback!
        
       | dave333 wrote:
       | Amazing that you can get much the same functionality in a off
       | brand $30 watch these days - at least monitors sleep and blood
       | oxygen - although it explicitly does not do medical diagnosis.
       | Still every senior should have one for many reasons.
        
         | TechDebtDevin wrote:
         | I have extremely severe sleep apnea with 60-100 events per
         | minute, and baseline blood oxygen is low to start with because
         | I live at altitude. I'm very into wearables and have tested
         | most of the top SpO2 capable watches and none of them detect my
         | sleep apnea outside a very rare detection of low O2.
        
         | emporas wrote:
         | Sleep apnea is very easily fixed. You have to increase blood
         | pressure on the head by a lot, for a little bit of time each
         | day, half an hour to an hour and it is 100% fixable.
         | 
         | Additionaly increasing blood pressure on the head helps for
         | sleeping more. I do that and sleep for an average of 10 hours a
         | day. 12 hours or 14 hours/day of sleep for me, is not rare
         | either.
         | 
         | Also increasing the blood pressure on the head helps fix myopia
         | 100%, like that woman astronaut who returned to earth and her
         | eyes worked perfectly again.
        
           | dave333 wrote:
           | Raising the foot end of the bed eg with a few thick books
           | under the mattress is supposed to give health benefits by
           | stopping the blood pooling in the lower legs where DVT blood
           | clots most likely occur. Wondering if it also benefits by
           | increasing blood pressure in the head?
        
             | emporas wrote:
             | Yep, exactly that, or similar. Use gravity to pull blood
             | towards the head. It's not rocket science, although if you
             | want to do that on space, you may need to learn a little
             | bit of rocket science.
             | 
             | In space that's the default situation. The heart pulses
             | maniacally to keep blood circulating all around, but in no
             | gravity places the legs are a pretty small organ, they
             | don't need that much blood. So in space, a lot of blood
             | ends up on the head. We can simulate that on earth for half
             | an hour/day and it has numerous benefits.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-09-09 23:00 UTC)