Wearable devices are increasingly present in the health context, as tools for biomedical research and clinical care. In this context, wearables are considered key tools for a more digital, personalised, preventive medicine. At the same time, wearables have also been associated with issues and risks, such as those connected to privacy and data sharing. Yet, discussions in the literature have mostly focused on either technical or ethical considerations, framing these as largely separate areas of discussion, and the contribution of wearables to the collection, development, application of biomedical knowledge has only partially been discussed. To fill in these gaps, in this article we provide an epistemic (knowledge-related) overview of the main functions of wearable technology for health: monitoring, screening, detection, and prediction. On this basis, we identify 4 areas of concern in the application of wearables for these functions: data quality, balanced estimations, health equity, and fairness. To move the field forward in an effective and beneficial direction, we present recommendations for the 4 areas: local standards of quality, interoperability, access, and representativity.

Research, innovation, and progress in the life sciences are increasingly contingent on access to large quantities of data. This is one of the key premises behind the “open science” movement and the global calls for fostering the sharing of personal data, datasets, and research results. This paper reports on the outcomes of discussions by the panel “Open science, data sharing and solidarity: who benefits?” held at the 2021 Biennial conference of the International Society for the History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology (ISHPSSB), and hosted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL).

In this paper, we use the case of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe to address the question of what kind of knowledge we should incorporate into public health policy. We show that policy-making during the COVID-19 pandemic has been biomedicine-centric in that its evidential basis marginalised input from non-biomedical disciplines. We then argue that in particular the social sciences could contribute essential expertise and evidence to public health policy in times of biomedical emergencies and that we should thus strive for a tighter integration of the social sciences in future evidence-based policy-making. This demand faces challenges on different levels, which we identify and discuss as potential inhibitors for a more pluralistic evidential basis.

In this paper, we analyse the relation between the use of environmental data in contemporary health sciences and related conceptualisations and operationalisations of the notion of environment. We consider three case studies that exemplify a different selection of environmental data and mode of data integration in data-intensive epidemiology. We argue that the diversification of data sources, their increase in scale and scope, and the application of novel analytic tools have brought about three significant conceptual shifts. First, we discuss the EXPOsOMICS project, an attempt to integrate genomic and environmental data which suggests a reframing of the boundaries between external and internal environments. Second, we explore the MEDMI platform, whose efforts to combine health, environmental and climate data instantiate a reframing and expansion of environmental exposure. Third, we illustrate how extracting epidemiological insights from extensive social data collected by the CIDACS institute yields innovative attributions of causal power to environmental factors. Identifying these shifts highlights the benefits and opportunities of new environmental data, as well as the challenges that such tools bring to understanding and fostering health. It also emphasises the constraints that data selection and accessibility pose to scientific imagination, including how researchers frame key concepts in health-related research.

Recently, it has been argued that the use of Big Data transforms the sciences, making data-driven research possible and studying causality redundant. In this paper, I focus on the claim on causal knowledge by examining the Big Data project EXPOsOMICS, whose research is funded by the European Commission and considered capable of improving our understanding of the relation between exposure and disease. While EXPOsOMICS may seem the perfect exemplification of the data-driven view, I show how causal knowledge is necessary for the project, both as a source for handling complexity and as an output for meeting the project’s goals. Consequently, I argue that data-driven claims about causality are fundamentally flawed and causal knowledge should be considered a necessary aspect of Big Data science. In addition, I present the consequences of this result on other data-driven claims, concerning the role of theoretical considerations. I argue that the importance of causal knowledge and other kinds of theoretical engagement in EXPOsOMICS undermine theory-free accounts and suggest alternative ways of framing science based on Big Data.

Background: Preoperative assessment is crucial to prevent the risk of complications of surgical operations and is usually focused on functional capacity. The increasing availability of wearable devices (smartwatches, trackers, rings, etc) can provide less intrusive assessment methods, reduce costs, and improve accuracy. Objective: The aim of this study was to present and evaluate the possibility of using commercial smartwatch data, such as those retrieved from the Fitbit Inspire 2 device, to assess functional capacity before elective surgery and correlate such data with the current gold standard measure, the 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) distance. Methods: During the hospital visit, patients were evaluated in terms of functional capacity using the 6MWT. Patients were asked to wear the Fitbit Inspire 2 for 7 days (with flexibility of –2 to +2 days) after the hospital visit, before their surgical operation. Resting heart rate and daily steps data were retrieved directly from the smartwatch. Feature engineering techniques allowed the extraction of heart rate over steps (HROS) and a modified version of Non-Exercise Testing Cardiorespiratory Fitness. All measures were correlated with 6MWT. Results: In total, 31 patients were enrolled in the study (n=22, 71% men; n=9, 29% women; mean age 76.06, SD 4.75 years). Data were collected between June 2021 and May 2022. The parameter that correlated best with the 6MWT was the Non-Exercise Testing Cardiorespiratory Fitness index (r=0.68; P<.001). The average resting heart rate over the whole acquisition period for each participant had r=−0.39 (P=.03), even if some patients did not wear the device at night. The correlation of the 6MWT distance with the HROS evaluated at 1% quantile was significant, with Pearson coefficient of −0.39 (P=.04). Fitbit step count had a fair correlation of 0.59 with 6MWT (P<.001). Conclusions: Our study is a promising starting point for the adoption of wearable technology in the evaluation of functional capacity of patients, which was strongly correlated with the gold standard. The study also identified limitations in the availability of metrics, variability of devices, accuracy and quality of data, and accessibility as crucial areas of focus for future studies.