)
The Temple device has triggered a medical controversy, with doctors questioning its claims of measuring brain blood flow. But the bigger problem is the growing wellness-tech market, where consumers are paying a premium for health metrics that are not always backed by robust clinical research.
Would you spend Rs 85,000 on a device that claims to tell you about your brain health, when there is no robust, peer-reviewed clinical evidence establishing that it can accurately measure cerebral blood flow?
I wouldn't.
And to be clear, my scepticism does not begin and end with the Temple device. I would apply the same caution to an Apple Watch, a smart ring or any other wearable that promises to turn complex physiological measurements into a picture of your health.
The wellness technology industry is booming. We are increasingly being encouraged to track our heart rate, sleep, oxygen saturation, stress levels, recovery scores and even aspects of our biological ageing. These devices can offer useful insights and help people become more aware of their bodies. But there is a significant difference between measuring something and proving that the measurement has clinical meaning.
That is precisely the question at the heart of the Temple device controversy.
The device, which claims to assess cerebral blood flow through a sensor placed at the temple, has triggered sharp reactions from doctors. Their central concern is whether a measurement taken from the superficial temporal artery can reliably tell us what is happening inside the brain.
I spoke with four doctors including on this. This is what they said.
READ | "Dear Concerned Indian Doctors," Deepinder Goyal Defends Temple, Says It's Not A Scam
Dr Sudhir Kumar, Senior Consultant Neurologist at Apollo Hospitals, said the two cannot automatically be equated.
"The superficial temporal artery supplies blood to the scalp and surrounding muscles. Measuring blood flow in this artery cannot automatically tell us about blood circulation inside the brain. To assess cerebral blood flow, we need to examine the carotid and vertebral arteries through established investigations such as CT or MR angiography."
He also questioned the evidence supporting the device and warns of the possibility of false reassurance.
"There is no robust, peer-reviewed scientific evidence establishing that the Temple device can accurately measure cerebral blood flow. My concern is that people may rely on its readings and ignore genuine neurological symptoms, potentially delaying hospital visits. It would be premature to recommend this device for public use without high-quality scientific validation."
Dr Rajesh Bharadwaj, ENT specialist at MedFirst, shared these concerns.
"The superficial temporal artery supplies blood to the scalp, not the brain. Measuring blood flow here cannot automatically establish cerebral blood flow. The claim needs robust scientific validation."
"There is no strong peer-reviewed evidence that the Temple device can reliably measure cerebral blood flow. False reassurance from its readings could cause people to delay medical attention. Its public use would therefore be premature."
But there is another side to this debate.
READ | Temple Is The Most Accurate Heart Rate Detector, Claims Deepinder Goyal; Here's How It Works
Dr Anurag Agarwal, Dean, Biosciences and Health Research, Ashoka University believes the underlying scientific hypothesis deserves investigation. He points out that pulse measurements can reveal considerably more than just heart rate.
"There is substantial physiological information in the pulse beyond heart rate alone. Pulse-wave shape, heart rate variability and measures of signal complexity, including entropy, can provide valuable insights into cardiovascular and autonomic function. The use of the superficial temporal artery (STA) is certainly worth investigating, and there is scientific basis to explore whether this location could offer advantages over conventional wrist or finger measurements."
He also referred to a CT-perfusion study published in the American Journal of Roentgenology, suggesting that the superficial temporal artery could potentially serve as a surrogate for deeper arteries.
"An interesting CT-perfusion study published in the American Journal of Roentgenology suggests that the superficial temporal artery could potentially serve as a surrogate for deeper arteries. This is a hypothesis that needs to be tested, and that appears to be what the Temple pre-print is attempting to investigate. It is fair to challenge claims that go beyond available evidence, but an unproven claim is not, by itself, evidence of fraud. We should encourage ambitious scientific experiments while holding them to rigorous evidentiary standards. Scientific criticism and respect can coexist."
That is an important distinction. Scientific innovation should not be discouraged. But a hypothesis is not proof, and a promising physiological measurement is not automatically a clinically validated health assessment.
Dr Sanjeev Bagai, Paediatric Nephrologist at Nephron Clinics, is considerably more critical of the device.
Calling it a "gimmick", he says:
"A gimmick Temple device is a non approved marketing toy. Unscientific & without any clinical data or research."
He questions whether brain blood flow can be assessed through a skin sensor at a single site.
"Brain blood flow can never be gauged by skin senors that too at one site. That's not only inaccurate but will give a false sense of relief to many vulnerables."
He also raises questions about the absence of published sensitivity and specificity data.
"No mention of its sensitivity or specificity."
His criticism extends to the way health products are marketed and promoted.
"Doctors are not mere social influencers or live on views on social media. We follow evidence based medicine."
He concludes:
"Failed toy. Failed marketing campaign. Failed product."
But is the Temple device the only problem?
Here is where I believe the conversation needs to become bigger.
The Temple device may be attracting attention because of its Rs 85,000 price tag and its claims about brain blood flow. But the larger wellness-tech industry deserves the same scrutiny.
Apple Watches, smart rings and other consumer wearables can measure or estimate several physiological parameters. Some measurements are supported by substantial validation research, while others are still evolving. Even when a device measures something accurately, it does not necessarily mean that its scores can diagnose a disease, predict an illness or tell us how healthy we really are.
Research in this space is uneven. Clinical validation, independent studies, diagnostic accuracy and evidence of improved health outcomes are not uniform across devices or features.
I would therefore be reluctant to spend money on any device simply because it promises to quantify my health. That includes the Temple device, an Apple Watch, a smart ring or any other wearable making ambitious health claims.
This is not an argument against technology. It is an argument against confusing data with diagnosis, numbers with evidence and marketing with medicine.
The question consumers should ask before buying any such device is simple: What exactly is it measuring? How accurately does it measure it? Has that measurement been independently validated? And, most importantly, does knowing this number actually improve my health?
At Rs 85,000, these are not unreasonable questions. They are the minimum questions a consumer should be asking.
Note
Study quoted by Dr Anurag https://www.ajronline.org/doi/full/10.2214/AJR.07.3677
Disclaimer: This content including advice provides generic information only. It is in no way a substitute for a qualified medical opinion. Always consult a specialist or your own doctor for more information. NDTV does not claim responsibility for this information.