Last Updated on April 8, 2024 by pg@petergamma.org
Rob ter Horst, the post-doctoral researcher from Vienna, Austria who is specialized in biological data analysis who want to make us believe that consumer grade HRMs are highly accurate:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/rob-ter-horst-90756a4a/?originalSubdomain=at
Several papers where published after Peter Gamma from www.petergamma.org started reviewing smartwatch accuracy.
But where data from previous papers reproduced by newer scientific papers? Peter Gamma from www.petergamma.org does not know of such follow-up papers. On the contrary, we are asking, are there no new scientific papers about smartwatch accuracy published anymmore? And Rob ter Horst has taken over all scientific testing? We sah today that Rob has a second test subject. But this is not enough for numerical and statisitcal relevant data.
And do we now have only Rob ter Horst instead of scientific papers who tests smartwatch accuracy? And if so, is this not proof enough, that the heart rate of smartwatches is inaccurate and not reproducable?
So inaccurate and irreproducable, so that it is not possible to publish a paper about the Apple watch 5 accuracy, after a paper about the accuracy of the Apple watch 4 has been published? Since if someone would do this, the accuracy would eventually be lower for the Apple watch 5 than it was for the Apple watch 4, and would this not lower the sales rates of Apple watches and of smartwatches in general?
And instead of scientific papers, we have now the quantitative scientist Rob ter Horst, who boosts up his accuracy plots to show us which is the most accurate device, but will this ever be reproduced in a paper which is published in the “Journal of Physiology”?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Journal_of_Physiology
Peter Gamma from www.petergamma.org, who will only read papers in the future at the level of this high-level scientific journal strongly doubt about this.