Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I let ChatGPT analyze a decade of my Apple Watch data, then I called my doctor

msn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 240 posts

Re: I let ChatGPT analyze a decade of my Apple Watch data, then I called my doctor

#41

Post by jdub »

miltonlost wrote: post #12
freedomben wrote: post #2

> Despite having access to my weight, blood pressure and cholesterol, ChatGPT based much of its negative assessment on an Apple Watch measurement known as VO2 max, the maximum amount of oxygen your body can consume during exercise. Apple says it collects an “estimate” of VO2 max, but the real thing requires a treadmill and a mask. Apple says its cardio fitness measures have been validated, but independent researchers…

> What would you expect the behavior of the AI to be? Should it always assume bad data or potentially bad data? If so, that seems like it would defeat the point of having data at all as you could never draw any conclusions from it. Well, I would expect the AI to provide the same response as a real doctor did from the same information. Which the article went over the doctors were able to. I also would expect the AI to…

Why do you have those expectations?

Re: I let ChatGPT analyze a decade of my Apple Watch data, then I called my doctor

#42

Post by stego-tech »

This is not remotely surprising.

Look, AI Healthbros, I'll tell you quite clearly what I want from your statistical pattern analyzers, and you don't even have to pay me for the idea (though I wouldn't say no to a home or Enterprise IT gig at your startup):

I want an AI/ML tool to not merely analyze my medical info (ON DEVICE, no cloud sharing kthx), but also extrapolate patterns involving weather, location, screen time, and other "non-health" data.

Do I record taking tylenol when the barometric pressure drops? Start alerting me ahead of time so I can try to avoid a headache.

Does my screen time correlate to immediately decreased sleep scores? Send me a push notification or webhook I can act upon/script off of, like locking me out of my device for the night or dimming my lights.

Am I recording higher-intensity workouts in colder temperatures or inclement weather? Start tracking those metrics and maybe keep better track of balance readings during those events for improved mobility issue detection.

Got an app where I track cannabis use or alcohol consumption? Tie that to my mental health journal or biological readings to identify red flags or concerns about misuse.

Stop trying to replace people like my medical care team, and instead equip them with better insights and datasets they can more quickly act upon. "Subject has been reporting more negative moods in his mental health journal, an uptick in alcohol consumption above his baseline, and inconsistent cannabis use compared to prior patterns" equips the care team with a quick, verifiable blurb from larger datasets that can accelerate care and improve patient outcomes - without the hallucinations of generative AI.

Re: I let ChatGPT analyze a decade of my Apple Watch data, then I called my doctor

#43

Post by siliconc0w »

The problem is that false positives can be incredibly expensive in money, time, pain, and anxiety. Most people cannot afford (and healthcare system cannot handle) thousands of dollars in tests to disprove every AI hunch. And tests are rarely consequence free. This is effectively a negative externality of these AI health products and society is picking up the tab.

Re: I let ChatGPT analyze a decade of my Apple Watch data, then I called my doctor

#44

Post by jdub »

Why do people even begin to believe that a large language model can usefully understand and interpret health data?

Sure, LLM companies and proponents bear responsibility for the positioning of LLM tools, and particularly their presentation as chat bots.

But from a systems point of view, it's hard to ignore the inequity and inconvenience of the US health system driving people to unrealistic alternatives.

(I wonder if anyone's gathering comparable stats on "Doctor LLM" interactions in different countries... there were some interesting ones that showed how "Doctor Google" was more of a problem in the US than elsewhere.)

Re: I let ChatGPT analyze a decade of my Apple Watch data, then I called my doctor

#46

Post by irjustin »

themafia wrote: post #39
irjustin wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it two sides to the same coin? You should be happy about it that it's not the thing specifically when the signs pointed towards it being "the thing"?

You are _absolutely_ going to die in the next 30 minutes. When it doesn't happen will you still be happy?

How is this apples-apples at all?

But to answer directly... yes? yes, I am.

[edit]

A bit it more real. My blood pressure monitor says my bp is 200/160. Chat says you're dead get yourself to a hospital.

Get to the hospital and says oh your bp monitor is wrong.

I'm happy? I would say that I am. Sure I'm annoyed at my machine, but way happier it's wrong than right.

Re: I let ChatGPT analyze a decade of my Apple Watch data, then I called my doctor

#47

Post by nomel »

ytoawwhra92 wrote: post #31
nomel wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is irresponsible for these companies I would claim that ignoring the "ChatGPT is AI and can make mistakes. Check important info." text, right under the query they type in client, is clearly more irresponsible. I think that a disclaimer like that is the most useful and reasonable approach for AI. "Here's a tool, and it's sometimes wrong." means the public can have access to LLMs and AI. The alternative, that you…

Why are you assuming that the general public ought to have access to imperfect tools? I live in a place where getting a blood test requires a referral from a doctor, who is also required to discuss the results with you.

> Why are you assuming that the general public ought to have access to imperfect tools?

Could you tell me which source of information do you see as "perfect" (or acceptable) that you see as a good example of a threshold for what you think the public should and should not have access to?

Also, what if a tool still provides value to the user, in some contexts, but not to others, in different contexts (for example, using the tool wrong)?

For the "tool" perspective, I've personal never seen a perfect tool. Do you have an example?

> I live in a place where getting a blood test requires a referral from a doctor, who is also required to discuss the results with you.

I don't see how this is relevant. In the above article, the user went to their doctor for advice and a referral. But, in the US (and, many European countries) blood tests aren't restricted, and can be had from private labs out of pocket, since they're just measurements of things that exist in your blood, and not allowing you to know what's inside of you would be considered government overreach/privacy violation. Medical interpretations/advice from the measurements is what's restricted, in most places.

Re: I let ChatGPT analyze a decade of my Apple Watch data, then I called my doctor

#48

Post by ytoawwhra92 »

nomel wrote: post #47
ytoawwhra92 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you assuming that the general public ought to have access to imperfect tools? I live in a place where getting a blood test requires a referral from a doctor, who is also required to discuss the results with you.

> Why are you assuming that the general public ought to have access to imperfect tools? Could you tell me which source of information do you see as "perfect" (or acceptable) that you see as a good example of a threshold for what you think the public should and should not have access to? Also, what if a tool still provides value to the user, in some contexts, but not to others, in different contexts (for example, usin…

> Could you tell me which source of information do you see as "perfect" (or acceptable) that you see as a good example of a threshold for what you think the public should and should not have access to?

I know it when I see it.

> I don't see how this is relevant.

It's relevant because blood testing is an imperfect tool. Laypeople lack the knowledge/experience to identify imperfections and are likely to take results at face value. Like the author of the article did when ChatGPT gave them an F for their cardiac health.

> Medical interpretations/advice from the measurements is what's restricted, in most places.

Do you agree with that restriction?

Re: I let ChatGPT analyze a decade of my Apple Watch data, then I called my doctor

#49

Post by vineyardmike »

fn-mote wrote: post #35
wawayanda wrote: post #16

A year or so ago, I fed my wife's blood work results into chatgpt and it came back with a terrifying diagnosis. Even after a lot of back and forth it stuck to its guns. We went to a specialist who performed some additional tests and explained that the condition cannot be diagnosed with just the original blood work and said that she did not have the condition. The whole thing was a borderline traumatic ordeal that I'm…

> I fed my wife's blood work results into chatgpt and it came back with a terrifying diagnosis I don't get it... a doctor ordered the blood work, right? And surely they did not have this opinion or you would have been sent to a specialist right away. In this case, the GP who ordered the blood work was the gatekeeper. Shouldn't they have been the person to deal with this inquiry in the first place? I would be a lot mo…

You don't need a doctor to order bloodwork. I get a full panel done yearly, just to establish a baseline and trend. I try not to overanalyze it, and just keep it around for a professional in case some real issue arises in the future.

Re: I let ChatGPT analyze a decade of my Apple Watch data, then I called my doctor

#50

Post by vineyardmike »

irjustin wrote: post #46
themafia wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are _absolutely_ going to die in the next 30 minutes. When it doesn't happen will you still be happy?

How is this apples-apples at all? But to answer directly... yes? yes, I am. [edit] A bit it more real. My blood pressure monitor says my bp is 200/160. Chat says you're dead get yourself to a hospital. Get to the hospital and says oh your bp monitor is wrong. I'm happy? I would say that I am. Sure I'm annoyed at my machine, but way happier it's wrong than right.

This is another example of why its frustrating still.

"Yes I'm happy I'm not dying" ignores that "go to the hospital [and waste a day, maybe some financial cost]" because a machine was wrong. This is still pretty inconvenient because a machine wasn't accurate/calibrated/engineered weak. Not dying is good, but the emotions and fear for a period of time is still bad.

Post reply on HN