Last Updated on August 19, 2023 by pg@petergamma.org
If we can by for the same prize of an Apple watch watch a Cyton board on Ebay and build from it with HeartPy 3 lead devices, devices which are known to very accurate, who is longer interested if the Apple watch Ultra plus is more accurate than the Apple watch Ultra?
Do we need further accuracy tests for 3 lead ECG devices based on Cyton and HeartPy to convince us from the high accuracy of these devices? Are not the demo videos enough we have seen what we can do with an iWorx ECG toolbox to maximize the accuracy? And a Cyton board with HeartPy has similar specifications as an iWorx TA 220 with an iWorx ECG toolbox. Yes, we need further tests of a Cyton 3 lead ECG device with HeartPy, but only to confirm the high accuracy we expect from this device.
From the Apple watches, we do not know, if it is technically possible at all, to ever reach the high accuracy of a 3 lead ECG devices. And who wants to invest time to find out? From 3 lead ECG we know from the cardiologists that they are gold standard for HR measurements. But who delivers us gold standard accuracy data from the latest Apple watches on a regular basis published in scientific papers?
Sports scientists are happy with the Polar H10 chest strap, Rob ter Horst is happy with the Apple watch Ultra and the Meditation Research Institute Switzerland (MRIS) is happy about what we have learned about a Cyton board in combination with for instance HeartPy, and that is how to reach an accuracy of an iWorx TA 220 with an iWorx ECG toolbox for about 10 % of the costs of an iWorx device with these components.