Last Updated on March 23, 2023 by pg@petergamma.org
Rob only mention a Holter ECG study of Magglingen, which is a 3 lead ECG device, but he does not mention the papers of the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio with 3 lead ECG devices:
Is this the act of a dubious scientist? What Rob says is only half the truth, we have discussed this topic in great detail in our journal:
We have Rob informed about the issue several times, but Rob ignores it. We could have submitted our review about sports sensor papers for instance to Sensors in Basel. But we are convinced that Sensors reviewers would have wanted more details about the different sports sensor validation papers from us, which we won t do. Is this worth it, and what is to gain from this? If users are happy with sports sensors which are not validated scientifically on the highest level as far as accuracy is concerned, what can we do? This is even more work which is not worth it for physiologists like us. Sports sensors have lost physiologists like us.
How long will it take before Rob will fall from his scientific throne, and we have better scientific data? Rob ignores the MRIS and papers from the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. But we will ignore Rob ter Horst the Quantitative Scientist, too, as soon as we have better scientific data, as he ignores us today. We will choose 3 lead ECG devices instead of sports sensors for our scientific work, as soon as we can.