Apple being sued by New York Cardiologist over Atrial Fibrillation Detection in the Apple Watch

I found this interesting and a bit amusing, but it seems that Apple is being sued by Joseph Wiesel, a clinical assistant professor in cardiology at NYU School of Medicine who alleges "... that the tech giant has infringed a patent—generally related to detecting atrial fibrillation by monitoring a pulse—on which Wiesel is the sole named inventor. The accused products are various versions of the Apple Watch, Series 3 and 4 through purported inclusion of an irregular pulse notification feature, and earlier versions through the alleged provision of a software upgrade to add 'irregular pulse notifications resulting from checking a pulse rhythm'."

Here's a link to the quoted material: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/news/59822?utm_campaign=weekly_newsletter&utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=title_click

Knowing Apple, they will do everything that they can to invalidate Wiesel's patent. This is a common practice for very large and domineering companies like Apple to do in order to refrain from playing royalties to patent holders, especially when the patent holder is an individual or a small company. 

The processes that have been put in place to examine patents to determine their validity when there is litigation have shown themselves to be quite favorable to large companies being sued for patent infringement. So I suggest that the likelihood that Dr. Wiesel will receive anything from his suit is not all that favorable.

Signal Detection and the Apple Watch

In the last two articles about the Apple Watch's capability to detect atrial fibrillation, I made references to terminology ("false positive") that has its roots in Signal Detection Theory.  Signal Detection Theory was developed as a means to determine the accuracy of early radar systems. The technique has migrated to communications systems, psychology, diagnostics and a variety of other domains where determining the presence or absence of something of interest is important especially when the signal to be detected would be presented within a noisy environment (this was particularly true of  early radars) or when the signal is weak and difficult to detect.  

Signal detection can be powerful tool to guide research methodologies and data analysis. I have used the signal detection paradigm in my own research both for the development of my research methodology and data analysis: planned and post-hoc analysis. In fact when I have taught courses in research methods and statistical analysis, I have used the signal detection paradigm as a way to convey detecting the effects of an experimental manipulation in your data.  

Because I've mentioned issues related to signal detection and that it is a powerful tool for research and development, I decided to provide a short primer of signal detection.

Signal Detection

The central feature of signal detection is the two by two matrix shown below.

The signal detection process begins with a detection window or event. The window for detection could be a period of time or a specified occurrence such as a psychological test such as a rapid presentation of a stimulus and determine whether or not the subject of the experiment detected what was presented. 

Or in the case of the Apple Watch, whether it detects atrial fibrillation. In devices such as the Apple Watch, how the system defines the detection window can be important. Since we have no information regarding how the Apple Watch atrial fibrillation detection system operates, it's difficult to determine how it determines its detection window.

Multiple, Repeated Trials

Before discussing the meaning of the Signal Detection Matrix, it's important to understand that every matrix comes with multiple, repeated trials with a particular detection system, whether that detection system is a machine or a biological entity such as a person. Signal Detection Theory is grounded in probability theory, therefore, there is the requirement for multiple trials in order to create a viable and valid matrix.

The Four Cells of the Signal Detection Matrix

During the window of detection, a signal may or may not be present. Each cell represents an outcome of a detection event. The possible outcomes are: 1: the signal was present and it was detected, a hit (upper left cell), 2: the signal was not present and the system or person correctly correctly reported no signal present (lower right cell), 3: the signal was absent, but erroneously reported as present, this is a Type I error (lower left cell) and 4: the signal was present, but reported as absent, this is a Type II error (upper right cell).

The object of any system is that the outcomes of detection events end up in outcome cells 1 and 2, that is, correctly reported. However, from a research standpoint, the error cells (Outcomes 3 and 4) are the most interesting and revealing. 

Incorrect Report: Cells

Outcome 3: Type I Error

A Type I error is reporting that a signal is present when it was not. This is known as a "false alarm or false positive." The statistic for alpha which is the ratio of Outcome 3 over Total number of trials or detection events.

Outcome 4: Type II Error

A Type II error is reporting that a signal is not present when in fact it was present. This is a "failure to detect." The statistic for beta which is the ratio of Outcome 4 over Total number of trials or detection events. 


If you're designing a detection system, the idea is to minimize both types of errors. However, no system is perfect and as such, it's important to determine what type of error is most acceptable, Type I or II because there are likely to be consequences either way. 

Trade-off Between Type I and Type II Errors

In experimental research the emphasis has largely been on minimizing Type I errors, that is reporting an experimental effect when in actuality none was present. Increasing your alpha level, that is decreasing your acceptance of Type I errors, increases the likelihood of making a Type II error, reporting that an experimental effect was not present when in fact it was. 

However, with medical devices, what type of error is of greater concern, Type I or Type II? That's a decision that will need to be made.

Before leaving this section, I should mention that the trade-off analysis between Type I and Type II errors is called Receiver-Operating-Characteristic Analysis or ROC-analysis. This is something that I'll discuss in a later article. 

With Respect to the Apple Watch 

Since I have no access into Apple's thinking when it was designing the Watch's atrial fibrillation software system, I can't know for certain the thinking that went into designing atrial fibrillation detection algorithm for the Apple Watch. However based on their own research, it seems that Apple made the decision to side on accepting false positives over false negatives -- although we can't be completely sure this is true because Apple did not do the research to determine rate that the Apple Watch failed to detect atrial fibrillation when it was know to be present.

With a "medical device" such as the Apple Watch, it would seem reasonable to side on accepting false positives over false positive. That is, to set your alpha level low. The hope would be that if the Apple Watch detected atrial fibrillation the owner of the watch would seek medical attention to determine whether or not a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation was warranted for receiving treatment for the condition. If the watch generated a false alarm, then there was no harm in seeking medical advice ... it would seem. The author of the NY Times article I cited in the previous article appears to hold to this point of view. 

However ...

The problem with a system that generates a high rate of false alarms, is that all too often signals tend to be ignored. Consider the following scenario: an owner of an Apple Watch receives an indication that atrial fibrillation has been detected. The owner goes to a physician who reports that there's no indication of atrial fibrillation. Time passes and the watch reports again that atrial fibrillation has been detected. The owner goes back to the physician who give the owner the same report as before, no atrial fibrillation detected. What do you think will happen if the owner receives from the watch that atrial fibrillation has been detected? It's likely that the owner will just ignore the report. That would really be a problem for the owner if the owner had in fact developed atrial fibrillation. In this scenario the watch "cried wolf" too many times. And therein lies the problem with having a system that's adjusted to accepting a high rate of false alarms.

Follow-up: Apple Watch 5, Afib detection, NY Times Article

The New York Times has published an article regarding the Apple Watch 5's capability to detect atrial fibrillation. The link to the article is below:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/26/upshot/apple-watch-atrial-fibrillation.html?te=1&nl=personal-tech&emc=edit_ct_20191226?campaign_id=38&instance_id=14801&segment_id=19884&user_id=d7e858ffd01b131c28733046812ca088&regi_id=6759438320191226

The title and the subtitle of the article provide a good summary of what the author (Aaron E. Carroll) found:

"The Watch Is Smart, but It Can’t Replace Your Doctor
Apple has been advertising its watch’s ability to detect atrial fibrillation. The reality doesn’t quite live up to the promise."

With reference to my article, the Times article provides more detail on the trial that Apple ran to test the effectiveness of the Apple Watch's ability to detect atrial fibrillation. That provide interesting and enlightening, and clarified some of the issues I found with how the study was reported for both the procedure and the results. In addition, the author and I concur regarding the Apple Watch's extremely high reported rate of false positives for atrial fibrillation. I find this quite interesting when you consider that screening for atrial fibrillation can be as simple as taking the patient's pulse. 

Here are a few quotes from the article:

"Of the 450 participants [these are study participants where the Apple Watch had detected atrial fibrillation] who returned patches , atrial fibrillation was confirmed in 34 percent, or 153 people. 
...

Many news outlets reporting on the study mentioned a topline result: a “positive predictive value” of 84 percent. That statistic refers to the chance that someone actually has the condition if he or she gets a positive test result.

But this result wasn’t calculated from any of the numbers above. It specifically refers to the subset of patients who had an irregular pulse notification while wearing their confirmatory patch. That’s a very small minority of participants. Of the 86 who got a notification while wearing a patch, 72 had confirmed evidence of atrial fibrillation. (Dividing 72 by 86 yields 0.84, which is how you get a positive predictive value of 84 percent.)

Positive predictive values, although useful when talking to patients, are not always a good measure of a test’s effectiveness. When you test a device on a group where everyone has a disease, for instance, all positive results are correct."
...

There are positive messages from this study. There’s potential to use commercial devices to monitor and assess people outside of the clinical setting, and there’s clearly an appetite for it as well. But for now and based on these results, while there may be reasons to own an Apple Watch, using it as a widespread screen for atrial fibrillation probably isn’t one."

Apple Watch 5: Heart Monitoring Capabilities -- Afib

The Apple Watch 5 has a heart rhythm monitoring capability that is tuned to detecting the presence of atrial fibrillation, AKA, Afib. Apple categorically states that the watch is unable to detect a heart attack. (And by implication, the likelihood of a heart attack occurring within minutes or hours.)

You have to manually enable your heart monitoring system (Watch and iPhone) to detect Afib. This not part of the default configuration. Here's the link for setting it up: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208931#afib

Here's what Apple says about the capabilities of their system and note that it requires both the Apple Watch 5 and an iPhone: 

INDICATIONS FOR USE (NON-EU REGIONS)

The Irregular Rhythm Notification Feature is a software-only mobile medical application that is intended to be used with the Apple Watch. The feature analyzes pulse rate data to identify episodes of irregular heart rhythms suggestive of atrial fibrillation (AF) and provides a notification to the user. The feature is intended for over-the-counter (OTC) use. It is not intended to provide a notification on every episode of irregular rhythm suggestive of AF and the absence of a notification is not intended to indicate no disease process is present; rather the feature is intended to opportunistically surface a notification of possible AF when sufficient data are available for analysis. These data are only captured when the user is still. Along with the user’s risk factors, the feature can be used to supplement the decision for AF screening. The feature is not intended to replace traditional methods of diagnosis or treatment.

The feature has not been tested for and is not intended for use in people under 22 years of age. It is also not intended for use in individuals previously diagnosed with AF.

INTENDED PURPOSE (EU REGION)

Intended Use

The Irregular Rhythm Notification Feature (IRNF) is intended to pre-screen and notify the user of the presence of irregular rhythms suggestive of atrial fibrillation (AF). The feature can be used to supplement a clinician’s decision to screen for possible AF. The feature is intended for over-the-counter (OTC) use.

The feature has not been tested for and is not intended for use in people under 22 years of age. It is also not intended for use in individuals previously diagnosed with AF.

Indications

The feature is indicated to pre-screen for irregular rhythms suggestive of AF for anyone aged 22 years and over.

USING THE IRREGULAR RHYTHM NOTIFICATION FEATURE Set-Up/On-boarding

• Open the Health app on your iPhone.
• Navigate to “Heart”, then select “Irregular Rhythm Notifications”.
• Follow the onscreen instructions.

Receiving a Notification

Once the feature is turned on, you will receive a notification if the feature identified a heart rhythm suggestive of AF and confirmed it on multiple readings.
If you have not been diagnosed with AF by a GP, you should discuss the notification with your doctor.

All data collected and analysed by the Irregular Rhythm Notification Feature is saved to the Health app on your iPhone. If you choose to, you can share that information by exporting your health data in the Health app.

SAFETY AND PERFORMANCE

In a study of 226 participants aged 22 years or older who had received an AF notification while wearing Apple Watch and subsequently wore an electrocardiogram (ECG) patch for approximately one week, 41.6% (94/226) had AF detected by ECG patch. During concurrent wear of Apple Watch and an ECG patch, 57/226 participants received an AF notification. Of those, 78.9% (45/57) showed concordant AF on the ECG patch and 98.2% (56/57) showed AF and other clinically relevant arrhythmias. A total of 370 irregular rhythm notifications with readable ECG patch data was received by the 57 participants. Of those 370 notifications, 322 (87.0%) were assessed to be AF, 47 (12.7%) were arrhythmias other than AF and 1 (0.3%) was sinus rhythm. These results demonstrate that, while in the majority of cases the notification will accurately represent the presence of AF, in some instances, a notification may indicate the presence of an arrhythmia other than AF. No serious device adverse effects were observed.

CAUTIONS

The Irregular Rhythm Notification Feature cannot detect heart attacks. If you ever experience chest pain, pressure, tightness or what you think is a heart attack, call emergency services.

The Irregular Rhythm Notification Feature is not constantly looking for AF and should not be relied on as a continuous monitor. This means the feature cannot detect all instances of AF and people with AF may not get a notification.

• Not intended for use by individuals previously diagnosed with AF.
• Notifications made by this feature are potential findings, not a complete diagnosis of cardiac conditions. All notifications should be reviewed by a medical professional for clinical decision making.
• Apple does not guarantee that you are not experiencing an arrhythmia or other health conditions even in the absence of an irregular rhythm notification. You should notify your GP if you experience any changes to your health.
• For best results, make sure your Apple Watch fits snugly on top of your wrist. The heart rate sensor should stay close to your skin.

From the information provided I am unable to determine how the Afib monitoring system detects Afib. It does seem use an additional capability beyond heart rate system, but from what little I can understand, it uses software running on either the watch and/or the iPhone and uses as input the data from the heart rate system.

I have no idea what algorithms the Apple heart monitoring system is using to detect atrial fibrillation (AF), but if you read the study above, you'll note that apparently, the Apple system has significant false positive rate. Walking through the study, to qualify as a subject for the study, you had to have had a positive indication of AF by the Apple system. That's the one clear message from the study. Another clear message is that both the Apple system and the AF patch can detect heart arrhythmia  other than AF, but what those were is unclear. Unfortunately the way the data is reported does not provide full clarity into the procedure and results. So there's not much more that I can comfortably conclude.

I feel comfortable stating that if you're wearing the Apple Watch and using the AF detection system and you get an AF indication, it's worth your time to get it checked out even knowing full well that the indication is more than likely to be a false positive.

However, high AF false positive rate of nearly 60% is concerning from the standpoint of those who have the Apple AF detection system activated and receive false positive indications. Information like this gets around and users may have tendency to ignore the AF indications when in fact they should be paying attention to them. To curb the possibility that someone ignores an accurately reported AF indication from the Apple system, it would behove Apple to include with the AF notification a check list displayed on the iPhone the walk the user through to determine if in fact this is an AF event.

Apple Watch 4: New York Times Review

Here's an article reviewing the Apple Watch 4 that was published in the New York Times on 19 September 2018.

Here's the link: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/technology/personaltech/apple-watch-series-4-review-health.html?em_pos=large&emc=edit_ct_20180920&nl=technology&nlid=67594383edit_ct_20180920&ref=headline&te=1

As of the posting of this article, Apple has yet to release their ECG app -- the thing I guess that most of us have interest with regards to the Apple Watch 4. It's the one thing that moves the Apple Watch 4 from a consumer to a medical device and a hardware platform on which to base medical applications and services. So, until the ECG application is available, I'm holding off on reviewing the Apple Watch 4.

Apple Watch 4 -- FDA Announcement: Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., and Center for Devices and Radiological Health Director Jeff Shuren, M.D., J.D., on agency efforts to work with tech industry to spur innovation in digital health

The FDA just provided what amounts to a "shout-out" to companies that design and manufacture intelligent, wearable devices that include medically-related monitoring devices and specifically, the Apple Watch 4.

Here's the link to the FDA statement: https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm620246.htm

And here's an interesting quote from the announcement:

... [There have come] a new swath of companies that are investing in these new opportunities [e.g., wearable, intelligent monitoring devices measuring medically-related, physiological characteristics with analysis capabilities.] These firms may be new to health care products and may not be accustomed to navigating the regulatory landscape that has traditionally surrounded these areas. A great example is the announcement of two mobile medical apps designed by Apple to work on the Apple Watch. One app creates an electrocardiogram, similar to traditional electrocardiograms, to detect the presence of atrial fibrillation and regular heart rhythm, while the other app analyzes pulse rate data to identify irregular heart rhythms suggestive of atrial fibrillation and notify the user. The FDA worked closely with the company as they developed and tested these software products, which may help millions of users identify health concerns more quickly. Health care products on ubiquitous devices, like smart watches, may help users seek treatment earlier and will truly empower them with more information about their health.

---------------
I find it interesting that Dr. Gottlieb states that the Apple Watch analyzes pulse rate data, not the ECG, to detect "rhythms suggestive of atrial fibrillation." Yeah, that's a way to do it, but analysis of the ECG is a much better way. When I do a deep dive on the Apple Watch 4, I'll look into this and questions like it.

Apple Watch 4, Preview of Medical-Monitoring Features

Here's an article regarding the Apple Watch 4 and what are suppose to be built in medical monitoring features.

Here's the link: https://www.mobihealthnews.com/content/apple-watch-series-4-will-have-fda-cleared-ecg-fall-detection?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTkRVMk0yVmxNamsyWkRneiIsInQiOiJjWXRoaVpENmhJYlBRNFlzVVBYZ3hrc0VEVFdsYmNLUG1FQUIrQmcyMnVHMTRwSnBORDh6cW1Da1kzbjJqS2JxbHcydjRuTk0zaG5qRzBvMFR1MmdiMmZyNGhyXC9SZmYyYkduaSs5R0tyRG85TXkrMHVxTnFFYXFrVE5jWHpIRWwifQ%3D%3D

Here's the list of new medically-related features:

1. ECG (30 second rhythm "strip")
2. A-Fib detection (of course, if you're paying attention and you know the symptoms, you'll probably know sooner than the watch.)
3. Fall detection (as in when the person falls, the watch detects that it has occurred)

All information is sent back to Apple Health Records where all this information be accessible to a physician/cardiologist.

Apple has received FDA approval, according to the article. 

I'm not going to comment until I've had a little more time to study the Apple Watch 4 except to say, if you can detect A-Fib, then why not V-Fib? V-Fib is much more life threatening. Also too, if you've got a 30 second rhythm snap shot, you can do a lot with that. 

I'll touch on these and other questions regarding the Apple Watch 4 and Apple's effort to product a remote medical monitoring device and medical monitoring system later. 

Apple Watch 4: Will it be suitable as a remote medical monitoring device? Part 1

When I first commented about the Apple Watch as being a possible platform for a remote medical monitoring system in 2015, I was initially excited about the possibilities. Sadly, the technology in 2015 was not quite ready as a platform for remote medical monitoring systems. However, Apple may be turning a corner with the Apple Watch 4 due to be released in Fall 2018. 

To be an effective remote medical monitoring and remote patient management device, the Apple Watch will need to reach acceptable levels of performance in the following seven areas of concern:

1. Bio-sensors
• Built in: are there enough bio sensors with enough resolution?
• Extended: the capability to have additional bio sensors that communicate wirelessly with the watch?
2. Communications over the Internet: Is there a reliable and secure means of communication back to the patient's monitoring system? And the means to communicate with the patient over that same communications channel(s)? 
3. Processing capability, hardware and software: Does the watch have the processing capability to host medical applications?
4. User interface: Visual, touch screen - will patients be able to interact with medical application using the touch screen? Will the watch have an effective audio user interface in order to hear instructions and make requests of the application running on the watch?
5. Reliability: Will the hardware and software reliable enough for a remote medical monitoring and patient management application to run on it?
6. Battery life: When running a remote medical monitoring and patient management application(s) on the watch, will the battery life before needing to recharge be acceptable?
7. Rugged: Is the Apple Watch 4 rugged enough to be a remote medical monitoring and patient management device?

I'm going to touch on each of the areas of concern regarding the performance of the Apple Watch 4.

1. Bio-sensors: I'm not going to address this issue until the Apple Watch 4 has been released. Once it has been released, I'll write an article specifically discussing this topic.
2. Communications over the Internet: A model of the Apple Watch 3 does have the capability of communicating over 4G so reliable communication over the commercial wireless provider networks is possible. We can assume that this capability will continue to the next release. So communications capabilities are likely to be adequate. 
3. Processing capability, hardware and software: Improvements in both are promised over the Apple Watch 3. We can probably assume that hardware and software capabilities will be adequate.
4. User interface:
• Visual, touch screen: The Apple Watch screen has been targeted to those with good visual acuity (with or without glasses) and fine finger control to be able to use the touch screen effectively. Current reports say that the screen will be larger than the Apple Watch 3. Nevertheless it's still a small screen. 
• Auditory: The Apple Watch 3 has Siri, meaning it does have an auditory user interface. More on this after the release of Watch 4.
5. Reliability: Apple has made positive strides in reliability with each release of the Apple Watch. We can assume that this will continue and that the Apple Watch 4 will be reliable enough to serve as a platform for remote medical monitoring and remote patient management applications.
6. Battery life: The Apple Watch 3 has a reported battery life of up to 18 hours. Again Apple has continued its improvements in this area. Patient medical monitoring should be continuous and without long breaks. Even with one or more days of battery life, the watch will still need to be changed and that could take hours. However, having said that, the price of an Apple Watch (because of the ruggedness requirement) that would serve as a remote medical monitoring and patient management device would be around $600. As medical devices go, that's inexpensive and inexpensive enough so that the patient could or should have at least two Apple Watches that would enable the patient to switch watches when necessary. That would place a burden on application software developers to manage when patients change watches, however, this should be manageable.
7. Rugged: The Apple Watch 3 has a version in a stainless steel case. This should be adequate for most situations. Also the issue of reasonably low price and the ability to have redundant watches should effectively address this issue.

Benefits of Remote Monitoring & Mayo Clinic Announcement

I've been arguing for some time that remote monitoring can not only lower medical costs, but it show itself to be of benefit to the patient as well. Here's an article that not only shows that remote monitoring can be of benefit to the patient, but to the physician as well.

Remote monitoring can not only provide better and more data ... that can lead to better analysis and conclusions. It can provide that data to the physician before the patient comes in for a visit. Furthermore, if an adverse medical event occurs, that data is captured and available to the attending health care providers. Admittedly the patient would have needed to have been wearing the monitoring device at the time, but if the person was wearing the monitoring device that information would be available.

Here's the link to the article: http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/remote-patient-monitoring-steps-toward-new-era

Here are a few quotes from the article that I found interesting ...

... if you spend $100 a month to monitor patients remotely – over a year it would cost much less then what you would pay if they have to come back to the hospital.

[T]here are two waves of activity. The more traditional top down wave extends the reach of hospitals with FDA approved medical devices that are deployed out in the home by providers by doctors to keep track of these patients.

There is also an increasing consumer wave where people are going out and buying the sensors and devices on their own and tracking their fitness and health and bringing that information to their healthcare providers.

=== I find this quote interesting in light of the Apple Watch and other similar devices ======

Some physicians, Kleinberg asserted, don’t need and don’t want that data from the patient and claim that they don't have a place to put the data and they don't have time to look at it.

=== Actually, machines can monitor this data on a continual basis. The machines can alert physicians as needed and provide summaries. Physicians need not review raw data. ======

"There's a push back to this consumer-up bottom-up wave. But over time I think we're going to see that the sensors and the data that’s coming from these devices is going to have more and more value and providers are going to put more faith in it," said Kleinberg. "They're going to look at it and make some sense of it and part of the way they are going to do that is if they have more confidence about that data."

=== I think the last sentence may be one of the most significant in the article. Confidence in the data and automated analysis will build and become mainstream. And I think that cost considerations will be a factor. =====

Announcement Title: Mayo Clinic To Develop Wireless Sensors To Treat Obesity

I found this quite interesting when I came across it. The sensors are far from being developed but I thought it worth posting the announcement link.

Here's the link to the announcement: http://www.healthitoutcomes.com/doc/mayo-clinic-develop-wireless-sensors-treat-obesity-0001

Here's a quote from the announcement.

The goal is to produce the first wearable patch sensor – the size of a bandage – that is wireless, disposable, and can remotely monitor patient movements via smartphone. This new technology would simplify tracking with greater accuracy of patients and clinical trial subjects for whom a certain level of activity is prescribed to achieve their goals.

Internet of Things ... From a Connected Medical Device Perspective

Before I dive into the issues regarding the possible means for connecting medical devices to the Internet, I would like to provide you with a little background on two relevant research programs I have lead. I was the principal investigator on two Federally supported research programs described below.

The first was a NIST Research grant to support the development of a secure and commercially viable wireless data communications technology. Much of that technology has been incorporated into today's smartphones, although not all of what we created has yet found its way into the current generation of smartphones. But with each iteration, more of what we created gets incorporated.

A central part of our program was to insure secure and private data communications. It would be secure from infiltration by malware and impenetrable by snoops ... including the NSA. The system worked by securing and controlling both ends of the communication. It was capable of sending a single file to over multiple communications channels simultaneously, the packets could be sent out of order using multiple forms of encryption including nonstandard or private encryption methods -- that are much harder to break. By securing and controlling both ends of the connection between devices, we could completely control what went in and out of the channel. Nothing would flow to the other end that was out of our view or control.

The second Federal grant was for a data security program. VoIP communications channels are lightly secured largely due to the requirements to insure that audio is clear and voices understandable. This fact makes VoIP channels particularly vulnerable vectors to use for an attack. There have been attempts to logically divide voice and data channels; however, there have been several demonstrations that this does not always work. Our research focused on methods to detect the presence of an intruder without disrupting or significantly lowering audio quality. And when we detected a possible intruder, we attacked this apparent intruder through a series of escalating techniques that could finally end with terminating the connection when it was clearly apparent that an intruder was using the VoIP connection to do something nefarious.

Architectures for the Internet of Things

The two architectures I would like to review are direct and mediated connections that could be used in the realm of the Internet of Things.

Direct and mediated connections are illustrated in the figure below.

The real difference between the two diagrams is the way the Apple Watch is connected to the Internet. On the left the Watch is directly connected to the Internet. When connected, it is an addressable device on the Internet. On the right, the Watch is connected to the Internet through the iPhone. The iPhone mediates the connection to the Internet through the iPhone. All the data traffic to and from the Watch goes through the iPhone.

A mediated connection through the device can be as simple and unmanaged as one through a router. However, with the appropriate software on the iPhone, the iPhone should be able to manage the connection with and security of the Watch.

In the case of the direct connection, management of the connection to the Internet including security must be done by the Watch itself. The Watch could be subject to a direct attack and must defend against such an attack by itself.

Best Architecture for Medical Devices?

In the diagram above, I'm treating the Watch as if it were a medical device ... and a medical device it could be. It would seem that the safest connection to the Internet would be a mediated connection. However, there are hybrid scenarios. For example, incoming communications including software updates could require a mediated connection. Encrypted uploads from the Watch to a centralized server system could use a direct connection.

This is a brief introduction into this topic. I'll have further explorations into this issue in future articles.

More on Apple Watch as a Medical Monitoring Device

I recently ran across an article about Apple's continuing work to make the Watch a medical monitoring device. Here's a link to that article:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/02/16/apple-scrapped-advanced-apple-watch-health-monitoring-features-due-to-reliability-issues

According to the article Apple considered including a number of medical monitoring devices/capabilities for their first generation Watch. For the first generation, those have been scrapped for reliability and regulatory reasons. Apparently Apple is still interested in adding more physiological sensors to the Watch, but if those capabilities appear, they'll be included in next generation Watches.

However, there was something that caught my interest from the article:

"Aside from catchall smartwatch devices, a number of standalone solutions for off-the-shelf medical style monitoring already exist in the form of products — usually wrist-worn — from smaller manufacturers and startups. For example, the W/Me band incorporates a specialized sensor to measure a user's autonomic nervous system for keeping track of stress levels, while the latest products from Fitbit tout all-day heart rate monitoring."

There are lots of other companies making sensors that would be useful for medical monitoring purposes. For Apple and the Watch there are many ways this can play out. Frankly none of these are mutually exclusive.

1. Apple can purchase the sensing technology to incorporate into Apple-produced sensors.
2. Apple can purchase the sensors and integrated them into the Watch 
3. The third-party sensors can communicate with the Apple Watch over WiFi. 

The data collected by the Apple Watch could be:

1. Analyzed and presented locally ... by the Watch
2. Uploaded to the iPhone were the iPhone would process the data and either communicate it back to the Watch for display or be displayed on the iPhone ... or both.
3. Uploaded to the iPhone that intern uploads it to a centralized system for processing. The results of that analysis could be communicated back for display on the iPhone or Watch. If so indicated an alert could be included if conditions warranted. 

Again, none of these are mutually exclusive. Data could be processed and displayed on the Watch and communicated back to a centralized system.

More updates on the Apple Watch to come ...

Apple Watch: An Emergent Medical Monitoring Device?

Apple has been grappling with the design and capabilities of a smart watch for years. Apple CEO Tim Cook announced that Apple would produce a smart watch in September 2014. The initial rollout is scheduled for 25 April 2015.

Tim Cook has suggested that the Apple Watch would do more than provide its owner with the time and as a wearable means to communicate with your iPhone ... something that you would rather leave in your pocket or purse. He suggested that this device could also serve as a means to assist people with monitoring their health and fitness. But can this device that is strapped to your wrist really do that?

Research on Smart Watches and Their Owners

Before doing the deep dive into the Apple Watch, I want briefly discuss some of my experience with researching smart watches. I can't divulge all the details of that research because some of that work that I was part of a research team is proprietary. I can say a few things about smart watches, the variety of their capabilities and some of the opinions about them that people who have used them have provided.

The smart watches that we used in our research had capabilities that fell into two categories. The first were capabilities that allowed the owner to communicate with and control their smartphone. For example, a smart watch would allow an owner to control music or podcasts being played or allow the owner to make and receive calls through the smart watch. Communication between the two devices was over Bluetooth (IEEE 802.15.1) The second were independent capabilities this can include GPS map capabilities, collecting and displaying running or cycling distances and routes. And providing the date and time.

We found that owners of smart watches were initially excited and enthusiastic about owning a smart watch. However, over time that excitement and interest disappeared ... and disappeared to the point where most owners were considering ways to rid themselves of their smart watches. Based on our research, smart watches seemed like a good idea. But once initially-enthusiastic owners tried to incorporate smart watches into their lives, their response to them became negative.

Apple Watch

The Apple Watch is almost upon us with great fanfare. Based on photographs and my read of the hardware and descriptions of the Apple Watch, it appears to be stylish that its predecessors ... an important quality. It appears that it will have many of the same capabilities as it's predecessors as well ... the ability to communicate with and control the owners iPhones (5 or later) - the smart watch will have Near Field Communication (NFC), Bluetooth (4.0), a speaker, microphone and a touch screen to enable communication and control - and a number of independent capabilities based on the following embedded sensors: accelerometer, gyroscope, heart rate sensor and barometer.

Beyond the heart rate sensor, what else might make the Apple Watch a wearable system to assist people with their health and fitness? I'm not sure, but what I found interesting about the Apple Watch, what makes it potential game changer in the realm of health and fitness is this: WiFi (802.11 b/g/n).

From all that I can tell, the inclusion of WiFi could be something that might make the Apple Watch something significant with respect to means for medical monitoring. WiFi is different from Bluetooth in that Bluetooth creates a dedicated one to one communications channel. A WiFi access point (AP) can support multiple, simultaneous connections. Is Apple working with other companies to create new body sensors that can communicate with the Apple Watch using WiFi? It's plausible and well worth watching. 

Monitor this blog ... more on this to come.