Samsung is taking wearable technology to the next level with its Galaxy Watch 7 and Watch Ultra by offering a deluge of innovative health-tracking tools for unbundled well-being. Central to this progress, is the implementation of AGE (Advanced Glycation End products) monitoring which claims to measure biological age. The tech giant is presenting this as a groundbreaking improvement, but that claim has medical experts clamoring in outrage.
A major reason behind this is that Samsung has updated its regular BioActive sensor with 4 more LEDs to make the new Galaxy Watch able to give you a better reflection on your heart rate and can also track AGE. In doing so, Samsung is taking the lead in wearable health monitoring. Yet the scientific community still has doubts as to whether AGE can be an honest-to-god determinate of health.
Complaints over AGE functionality are varied. The first is quite simply that the technology lacks sound scientific underpinning. Failure to test adequately could mean unreliable information, which would result in a negative user experience as they make ill-informed decisions about their health. Theories regarding AGE including overdiagnosis (false positives) and underdiagnosis otherwise referred to as false negatives in prompts also suspect misinterpretation with potential pitfalls-related markers.
Moreover, the implementation of AGE monitoring also obliterates the borderline between health management and medical treatment. For this aggressive push into smartwatch territory, Samsung might start playing with fire — a move that just might blur the lines between these spaces at an expense to healthcare professionals.
As Samsung works to develop its wearable technology more fully, it is important for the company not only to validate scientific rigorously and be transparent about what we can (and cannot) do with this stuff. Although the drive to implement novel health technologies is laudable, it should not override public well-being.
To fulfill that vision, Samsung has to walk the fine line between progress and questioning how much of your body’s health data they should own. The organization treads a fine line here, as running the risk of accidentally deceiving customers and undermining public confidence.
