121–130 of 171 posts
Wonder what happened to so called smart insulin https://bristol.ac.uk/news/2018/august/ziylo-deal.html
https://www.biocentury.com/article/653947/science-spotlight-... NNC2215 explained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVTS_J7Xmxs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about this research indicates to you that it doesn't address the accuracy issue?
> Shaker said. “No other technology can provide this level of precision without direct contact with the bloodstream.” The existing alternatives do have access to the bloodstream.
> The existing alternatives do have access to the bloodstream.
So? Who says otherwise? People don't want invasive tests that have direct contact with their bloodstream.
We just reached (in a clinical trial) a comparable accuracy as early-stage invasive devices that got FDA approved with a shoe-box-sized device and we still have some work to do. The pre-print of our publication is here: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-5289491/v1
I'm excited to see new developments but in this case, I'm not sure this will reach the market anytime soon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for calling this out. That was also my impression after having skimmed their paper: the only link to glucose monitoring is that the authors mention a few papers on the topic to motivate their research. And looking at the papers they cite, I see little evidence that this approach could work in practice in the near future. Most of the citations [2, 15, 16] are to their own work, which did not look at glucose mon…
I assume there's an RF mixer somewhere in there. Edit: read the paper, now more confused
We - at DiaMonTech - are working on non-invasive glucose monitoring for over a decade now. It's a hard and complex problem and as long as clinical data is missing, I'm very sceptical. We just reached (in a clinical trial) a comparable accuracy as early-stage invasive devices that got FDA approved with a shoe-box-sized device and we still have some work to do. The pre-print of our publication is here: https://www.rese…
Man, you have no idea. I'd gladly buy a shoebox-sized thing. No finger pricking and no test strips to buy is the king. It could be 4U rackmount thing for all I care, as long as it was noninvasive and accurate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but for me, the biggest quality of life improvements for me will be continued improvements with closed loop CGM + insulin pump systems You might find this interesting: "A bi-hormonal fully closed loop system" https://www.inredadiabetic.nl/en/home-english/
Having talked with T1 diabetics about such systems, the issue is that you don’t want to deplete glycogen stores just for basal management. Because your life might depend on their levels in case of a severe hypo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct, but I'm extremely skeptical, and that sentence had my bullshit detector alarms screaming even louder: > “We have a minimum viable product that’s already being used in clinical trials, and while there’s more work to be done, we’re much closer to a full marketable device,” Shaker said. Absolutely no information about what this "clinical trial" entails, or what phase it was. Most importantly, to get an initial…
It’s fair to be skeptical. Personally, I’ll believe it when I see it in action. There’s likely an unexplained catch or they wouldn’t have shared any hard data in the paper. One possibility is that they want to sell this technology to a big company without publicly disclosing all their trade secrets. However, this research could have been sponsored by a public grant, which would have compelled them to share some infor…
FWIW, it was not published in 'Nature' but in 'Communications Engineering', a journal by Nature Portfolio (formerly known as Nature Publishing Group, part of Springer Nature). It is a new Open Access journal, established only in 2022. Given the track record of their 'Scientific Reports' journal [1], I would be rather cautious regarding the quality of the works published at 'Communications Engineering'.
IMHO, Nature Portfolio is doing their 'Nature' journal a disservice by hosting all of their journals at nature.com. I guess this is intentional, letting their less prestigious journals profit from Nature's prominence.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Reports#Controversi...
Sorry to break the party. A buddy of mine is deeply skeptical, and he is one of the few with a decent amount of peer-reviewed publications about non-invasive blood glucose measurement. The idea to use "Radar near-field sensing" is everything but new and nothing has ever come out of it. "Breakthroughs" in this field are a dime a dozen: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/liom-cracks-holy-grail-non-22... My buddy is one of…
I do agree on one part regardless of any of that though... I'm at the point of waiting for the one who actually sells me said device instead of the one that says they'll soon be able to.
There is a company that (allegedly) already produces such a device: https://www.knowlabs.co/ I've looked over the studies/tests they've done and they look decent, though the accuracy is not that great.
I initially got excited about this (and know people who would really love this to exist), but after a bit of digging, I am convinced that this is likely a scam. This report explains why it is: https://whitediamondresearch.com/research/know-labs-is-an-ob... . You could also look at the stock economics to see that this company has not behaved like one with a bright future.
It’s also a little presumptuous to believe that someone would want to wear a bulky medical device for an easily manageable and non-life threatening condition all the time. If not wearing a medical device doesn’t kill you, then why do you need to wear it? Form factor and comfort is important.