Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Truth Seekers: Where Data Meets Reality
Tired of sensational headlines and conflicting health advice? Join Alex Barrett and Bill Morrison as they cut through the noise to uncover what scientific research actually says about the claims flooding your social media feed.
Each week, Alex and Bill tackle a different health, nutrition, or wellness claim that everyone's talking about. From "blue light ruins your sleep" to "seed oils are toxic," they dig into the actual studies, examine the methodologies, and translate the data into plain English.
No agenda. No sponsors to please. No credentials to fake. Just two people committed to finding out what's really true by going straight to the source—the research itself.
Perfect for anyone who's skeptical of influencer health advice but doesn't have time to read every scientific study themselves. New episodes drop regularly, delivering clarity in a world full of clickbait.
Question everything. Verify with data. Find the truth.
Disclaimer: Truth Seekers provides educational content based on published research. Nothing in this podcast should be considered medical, financial, or professional advice. Always consult qualified professionals for decisions affecting your health and wellbeing.
**Your Apple Watch Knows Your Heart Better Than Your Doctor? Not Quite.**
Alex: So apparently your Apple Watch can now detect heart disease with ninety-nine percent accuracy. Which is brilliant, really—why bother with cardiologists when you've got a fancy wristband?
Bill: Yeah, I saw that headline everywhere this week. And my first thought was: ninety-nine percent accuracy at *what* exactly?
Alex: Right, because that's the question, isn't it? When something sounds too good to be true in a headline, I've learned to immediately ask what they're not telling me.
Bill: This one's from Yale, presented at the American Heart Association conference in November. The headlines are all variations of "AI-powered smartwatch detects heart disease with 99% accuracy."
Alex: And people are understandably excited. I mean, structural heart disease—we're talking weakened heart muscle, damaged valves, dangerous thickening—that's serious stuff. If your watch could catch that early, that's potentially life-saving.
Bill: Absolutely. And the underlying research is actually pretty sophisticated. They trained an AI algorithm on over 266,000 ECGs from hospital patients, then tested it on 600 people using just the single-lead ECG from an Apple Watch.
Alex: Okay, so far that sounds reasonable. What's the catch?
Bill: The catch is that "99% accuracy" isn't accuracy at all. It's something called negative predictive value, and it's answering a completely different question.
Alex: Go on.
Bill: So when they say 99%, what they actually mean is: if your smartwatch says you *don't* have heart disease, there's a 99% chance that's correct. That sounds great, but here's the thing—that number is massively inflated by how rare the disease is in their study population.
Alex: Hang on. You're saying the stat looks good because the disease is uncommon?
Bill: Exactly. Only 21 people out of 596 in their study actually had structural heart disease. That's about 5%. When disease prevalence is that low, almost any test with decent performance will give you a really high negative predictive value. It's a mathematical property of screening rare conditions.
Alex: So the 99% is less about the test being brilliant and more about the disease being uncommon.
Bill: Right. And here's what the headlines buried: the test's sensitivity—its ability to actually *catch* disease when it's there—was only 86%.
Alex: Which means it missed...
Bill: Fourteen percent. Roughly one in seven people with actual structural heart disease got a negative result and false reassurance.
Alex: That's not a small problem. If someone's watch says they're fine, they might not bother going to their doctor even if they're having symptoms.
Bill: Exactly. And we're talking about 3 people in this study who had serious heart conditions—weakened pumping, damaged valves—but the algorithm said they were fine.
Alex: So the 99% statistic is technically true but functionally misleading.
Bill: And that's not even the worst part. Let's talk about what happens when the test says you *do* have a problem.
Alex: Oh no.
Bill: The positive predictive value—how often a positive result is actually correct—was only 27%.
Alex: Twenty-seven percent? So if your watch flags you for potential heart disease...
Bill: There's a 73% chance it's wrong. Three out of four positive results are false alarms.
Alex: Which means unnecessary echocardiograms, cardiology appointments, anxiety, cost. I remember when I was covering health stories, we saw this exact pattern with early smartwatch screening for atrial fibrillation. Loads of false positives clogging up the system.
Bill: Same issue. And when you scale this up—imagine millions of people wearing these watches—you're creating a massive downstream problem for healthcare systems.
Alex: But here's what I'm wondering. The researchers at Yale, they must have known these limitations. Did they actually claim this was ready for clinical use?
Bill: No, and that's what's frustrating. The lead researcher, Dr. Rohan Khera, explicitly said: "On its own, a single-lead ECG is limited; it can't replace a 12-lead ECG test available in health care settings."
Alex: So the researchers were appropriately cautious.
Bill: Completely. They acknowledged the small number of disease cases, the false positive problem, and they even emphasized this was preliminary work presented at a conference—not peer-reviewed, not published in a journal yet.
Alex: And somehow between the conference abstract and the headlines, all of that nuance just... vanished.
Bill: It's the classic translation gap. The American Heart Association press release emphasized the 99% figure. Media outlets ran with it. And suddenly preliminary research became "your Apple Watch can detect heart disease."
Alex: This is exactly the sort of thing that used to drive me mad when I was working in journalism. You'd have a perfectly good study with appropriate caveats, and then the headline would promise a miracle.
Bill: The thing is, the underlying research is actually interesting. Using AI to extract structural information from a single-lead smartwatch ECG is technically impressive. An 86% sensitivity for preliminary work isn't bad.
Alex: So this isn't junk science.
Bill: Not at all. It's solid early-stage research that demonstrates proof-of-concept. The problem is presenting it as if it's clinically validated and ready to replace actual medical testing.
Alex: What about the way they trained the algorithm? Because I imagine a single-lead ECG from a watch you're wearing while walking around is a lot noisier than a hospital ECG.
Bill: They actually thought about that. They added artificial noise to their training data—Gaussian noise—to simulate real-world conditions. That's a smart approach.
Alex: But?
Bill: But simulated noise isn't the same as actual noise from movement, poor contact, electrical interference. We don't know how well this performs when someone takes a reading while they're stressed, or their wrist is sweaty, or they're in a car.
Alex: And presumably the 600 people in the study were taking their smartwatch ECGs in a controlled setting at Yale.
Bill: Exactly. They were already there for echocardiograms—this was a clinical population, median age 62, already being evaluated for cardiac concerns. That's not representative of the general public wearing Apple Watches.
Alex: So we've got a study with 21 actual disease cases, conducted in a hospital setting, on a population that's already at higher risk, and the technology hasn't been peer-reviewed yet.
Bill: And headlines saying "99% accuracy."
Alex: What's the actual prevalence of structural heart disease in the general population? Because if it's lower than that 5% in the study...
Bill: It is lower. In an actual population-wide screening where prevalence might be 1%, that positive predictive value would be even worse than 27%. You'd have even more false alarms per true case.
Alex: So the problem compounds as you expand the screening.
Bill: Right. And here's the thing—current medical guidelines don't even recommend routine screening for structural heart disease in healthy adults without symptoms or risk factors.
Alex: Because the harm from false positives potentially outweighs the benefit.
Bill: Exactly. This is why screening tests need to be really, really good—and why context matters so much.
Alex: I think what bothers me most is that someone with actual heart disease symptoms might look at their Apple Watch, see a negative result, and think "well, I don't need to see a doctor then."
Bill: That's the false reassurance problem. And with 14% of disease cases being missed, that's a real risk.
Alex: So what should people actually take away from this research?
Bill: I think the real finding is: AI applied to smartwatch ECG data shows promise for future development. It's a proof-of-concept that deserves further study with larger populations and real-world testing.
Alex: But it is not—
Bill: —a validated diagnostic tool. It cannot replace clinical evaluation. And a negative result does not rule out heart disease.
Alex: And that 99% figure?
Bill: Is the perfect example of why you need to ask: 99% at *what*? In this case, it's the probability that a negative test is correct, which sounds impressive until you realize it's mostly just telling you the disease is rare.
Alex: When I see health headlines now, especially ones with really precise, impressive-sounding percentages, I've learned to look for what they're not telling you. What was the actual sample size? Who were the participants? What metric are they actually measuring?
Bill: And whether the study has been peer-reviewed. Conference abstracts are an important part of scientific communication, but they're preliminary. They're the start of the conversation, not the end.
Alex: The American Heart Association actually includes a disclaimer on these abstracts saying they're "considered preliminary until published as a full manuscript in a peer-reviewed scientific journal."
Bill: But that disclaimer doesn't make it into the headlines.
Alex: Of course not. "Preliminary research shows modest promise but needs more work" doesn't exactly grab attention.
Bill: Although honestly, as someone who used to work with data, preliminary research that shows promise is actually exciting. It's the beginning of figuring something out.
Alex: But we've turned it into the finish line.
Bill: Yeah. And that does a disservice both to the public, who gets misleading information, and to the researchers, whose work gets hyped beyond what they actually claimed.
Alex: So if you're someone who wears an Apple Watch and you're wondering whether you should trust it for heart disease screening—
Bill: Don't. If you have symptoms, risk factors, or concerns, see an actual doctor. Get a real ECG, get an echocardiogram if needed. Your smartwatch can't replace that, and the researchers themselves explicitly said so.
Alex: And if you see a headline claiming some new technology is 99% accurate at detecting a serious medical condition—
Bill: Ask what that 99% actually measures. Ask about false negatives and false positives. Ask whether it's been peer-reviewed. And remember that in healthcare, accuracy isn't just a number—it's about real people getting the right diagnosis and the right care.
Alex: The technology will probably get there eventually. This kind of research is how we make progress.
Bill: Absolutely. But we're not there yet, and pretending we are doesn't help anyone.
Alex: Except maybe Apple Watch sales.
Bill: Fair point.