Show HN: An attempt to spot Covid-19 outbreaks using wearable devices
detectstudy.org
detectstudy.org
In January, my colleagues at Scripps published a study in the Lancet that used heart rate and sleep data from about 47,000 Fitbit users in the U.S. to predict which areas would be hardest hit by flu. [3] The correlation with actual reports from the Centers for Disease Control was very high: 0.9.
We’re hoping that we can do something similar for COVID-19 infection. In particular, elevated resting heart rate appears to be a reliable indicator of viral infection. [4] We’re wondering whether it might also be a leading indicator, i.e, spiking to a detectable degree before any measurable fever. If it were, we might be able to identify COVID-19 infections in individuals -- and areas with outbreaks -- before people even have any symptoms.
To figure this out, we’re going to need a lot of participants. And that’s really the greatest challenge for us now. A similar project in Germany [5], which was inspired by our Lancet flu study, already has more than 160,000 volunteers. But they have the advantage of being sponsored by a national research institute. We don’t.
If you have suggestions about how we might reach people with wearables who want to help out -- or if you have questions about the DETECT study -- please add them to the comments.
Thanks, Danny
[1] Substantial undocumented infection facilitates the rapid dissemination of novel coronavirus. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/03/24/scie...
[2] Pivoting health research to take on COVID-19. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/pivoting-health-resea...
[3] Harnessing wearable device data to improve state-level real-time surveillance of influenza-like illness in the USA. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landig/article/PIIS2589-7...
[4] Fever and cardiac rhythm. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articl...
[5] Germany launches smartwatch app to monitor coronavirus spread. https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/04/07/technology/07reut...
You might get more volunteers and data if you remove the geographic restrictions.
Temperature is only recorded during activities, and as it's measured inside the watch the value is somewhere between body and environment temperature. Unless environment and fit of the watch are controlled, I would not expect useful readings.
The oxymeter is also not very good, probably because the position at the wrist is suboptimal and the sensor isn't opposite of the LED. The light shines into the skin, not through it, as with the oxymeters that are clipped onto a finger. Measurements take about 20 seconds and are wildly off and inconsistent. I just measured 99-100% saturation with a clip-on oxymeter and 92% with my watch.
The value I trust most is the resting heart rate. It's not just the minimum value recorded, the watch seems to apply some heuristics to figure out whether a measurement was clean or not. The sensor data itself must be very noisy. When the "abnormal HR" feature is turned on, I get false alarms multiple times per day. I had a colleague who thought her HR was pretty constantly at 60, because that was the default value of the Fitbit that she wore like a loose bracelet.
To provide some anecdotal data, I had a bronchitis last year and the RHR went from 49 to 69 at its peak. At the same time, the "Body Battery", which is calculated from HR data, also went down to 0%. I was surprised that the feature actually works, but definitely didn't need it to figure out I am sick.
https://support.garmin.com/en-US/?faq=VOFJAsiXut9K19k1qEn5W5
I wish that the formula used to calculate it were less opaque. If it were open source, researchers might make use of it.
For example, in another comment, I mentioned a study that's using the Oura ring, which is a great product, but has a far smaller user base than the mass-market Fitbit and Apple Watch audience that our study is focused on. So it's really additive to have both of our research efforts going forward.
ABC7 in SF just reported a collaboration as "Stanford and Fitbit", giving innovators.stanford.edu (not working) as a site to sign up. Relatedly I find the following:
https://hitconsultant.net/2020/04/14/fitbit-scripps-stanford...
I could imagine participants in any device-specific work opting-in to sharing anonymized data with one-or-more broader-based studies/analyses, if that is not part of opting-in to the device-specific work in the first place.
Unfortunately, as a non-profit academic institution, we don't have any budget for advertising. I wish we could run millions of dollars of ads online and on TV to encourage people to join. Instead, I guess we'll have to rely on word of mouth.