From scanning the paper briefly is that those are people who would be really thrilled if they had actually discovered something useful and they hope this can lead to important new work, presumably with them being asked to follow up on it. It's almost like a marketing piece. "It is possible that the use of wearables will lead to false alarms and overdiagnosis of disease. The number of false alarms will depend upon the threshold that is set, which can be personalized." It doesn't say how it could be personalized, which sounds critical for a claim like that. "Overall, we envision that these devices could be particularly powerful for individuals who are responsible for the health of others (i.e., parents and caregivers), and perhaps also for those who have historically limited health care access, including groups with low income and/or remote geography." We didn't really check with these people, but we're sure it could work for them, and them, and also them!
I hope I'm wrong, and that someone more knowledgeable here can confirm this was good research. Because if not, it would be downright irresponsible to suggest burdening people with sensors for an outcome that could be not just not useful but possibly harmful. That would fall under "academic prostitution". Again I'm hoping this is just my ignorance and laziness to read the article carefully.