Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Know Labs unveils glucose monitor that swaps fingersticks for RF sensors

fiercebiotech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 86 posts

Re: Know Labs unveils glucose monitor that swaps fingersticks for RF sensors

#71

Post by pacman2 »

xenadu02 wrote: post #53
RileyJames wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve re-read your last paragraph a few times but I’m still confused (tho intrigued). Fancy re-wording it?

I think they mean the NIH grant reviewer dismissed the grant request on the basis that the technology was too expensive - ignoring that the research was intended to catalyze mass production which would have made the technology economical. Thus missing the point of the grant proposal.

Yes. Basically. This item is available for a lab setting with many fancy options. Cost: 50.000 USD

If 10.000 units of a customized simple version are ordered, the cost is 500 USD, give or take a few hundred dollars. This was not my estimate, this was the quote given by a company.

Re: Know Labs unveils glucose monitor that swaps fingersticks for RF sensors

#72

Post by pacman2 »

tpoacher wrote: post #62
pacman2 wrote: post #48

I find some of the this vague in this announcement. Non invasive BGM is the "holy grail" in this field. Tons of companies have failed after big investments. Some scammers are out there they claim since decades they solved the problem. I would be curious about peer reviewed publications of their technology. A friend of mine is working on this too. Close to market. He is the only one that regularly published peer revie…

I have a counter-story. When I started my Phd in 2011, one professor, an absolute top player in the field and prof in a top tier university, revealed that he had patented a fully functional prototype a few years back, which allowed similar cheap non-stick measurement of glucose (i think this was on a principle similar to pulse oximetry rather than RF). The patent was swiftly bought by a large pharmaceutical company a…

Doubt it. There are so many issues with any technology regarding non-invasive. Is it still accurate if the individual has a fever? etc. etc. There were at least 50 companies that tried to build such devices, some start-ups had funding in the 50-100 million USD range - and failed. Samsung abandoned it. Apple is rumored to work on it.

Also, without clinical trials you really can't claim this device is reliable. You would also have to compare to real blood glucose and not the finger prick test.

Re: Know Labs unveils glucose monitor that swaps fingersticks for RF sensors

#73

Post by criddell »

kemiller2002 wrote: post #66
criddell wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you bury a patent? They are all published, aren't they?

When he says bury what he means is that no one can use it to build something. The company just holds it to prevent everyone else from using the idea.

I'd love to know the patent number just to see how it works. I wonder if there are countries you could build and sell the device in?

Re: Know Labs unveils glucose monitor that swaps fingersticks for RF sensors

#74

Post by pacman2 »

dmos62 wrote: post #57
pacman2 wrote: post #48

I find some of the this vague in this announcement. Non invasive BGM is the "holy grail" in this field. Tons of companies have failed after big investments. Some scammers are out there they claim since decades they solved the problem. I would be curious about peer reviewed publications of their technology. A friend of mine is working on this too. Close to market. He is the only one that regularly published peer revie…

Sounds like you didn't idiot-proof your proposal. A lot of good paper writing guidelines, like explain value of contribution fast and early, could be phrased as idiot-proofing.

Maybe. But maybe you don't know how SBIR grants work. I consider them highly corrupt and I was told by people who got them how they got them and they even advised me, not to waste my time (two person, both hat P1 and P2).

The solicitation was for non-invasive BGM. Of the accepted proposals, nothing came out. Big surprise. At least I got a very high rating for "originality" of our approach.

Re: Know Labs unveils glucose monitor that swaps fingersticks for RF sensors

#75

Post by nobleach »

pacman2 wrote: post #72
tpoacher wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a counter-story. When I started my Phd in 2011, one professor, an absolute top player in the field and prof in a top tier university, revealed that he had patented a fully functional prototype a few years back, which allowed similar cheap non-stick measurement of glucose (i think this was on a principle similar to pulse oximetry rather than RF). The patent was swiftly bought by a large pharmaceutical company a…

Doubt it. There are so many issues with any technology regarding non-invasive. Is it still accurate if the individual has a fever? etc. etc. There were at least 50 companies that tried to build such devices, some start-ups had funding in the 50-100 million USD range - and failed. Samsung abandoned it. Apple is rumored to work on it. Also, without clinical trials you really can't claim this device is reliable. You wou…

Forgive my ignorance but, isn't a finger prick measuring real blood glucose? Or are you referring to a more long term/average a1c? (Or is there something in between that I just don't know about?)

Re: Know Labs unveils glucose monitor that swaps fingersticks for RF sensors

#76

Post by idealmedtech »

nobleach wrote: post #75
pacman2 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doubt it. There are so many issues with any technology regarding non-invasive. Is it still accurate if the individual has a fever? etc. etc. There were at least 50 companies that tried to build such devices, some start-ups had funding in the 50-100 million USD range - and failed. Samsung abandoned it. Apple is rumored to work on it. Also, without clinical trials you really can't claim this device is reliable. You wou…

Forgive my ignorance but, isn't a finger prick measuring real blood glucose? Or are you referring to a more long term/average a1c? (Or is there something in between that I just don't know about?)

"Real" blood glucose is glucose as measured by a reference standard device, like the YSI 2500, arterial blood gas machine etc. Finger pricks are accurate to within ~15% of the real blood sugar, and reference machines like the YSI are accurate to within ~1%.

Re: Know Labs unveils glucose monitor that swaps fingersticks for RF sensors

#77

Post by pacman2 »

idealmedtech wrote: post #76
nobleach wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forgive my ignorance but, isn't a finger prick measuring real blood glucose? Or are you referring to a more long term/average a1c? (Or is there something in between that I just don't know about?)

"Real" blood glucose is glucose as measured by a reference standard device, like the YSI 2500, arterial blood gas machine etc. Finger pricks are accurate to within ~15% of the real blood sugar, and reference machines like the YSI are accurate to within ~1%.

Exactly. And I doubt that this device is used in any lab, except in a clinical lab setting. I have seen it in clinical trials. Focus on the word "arterial blood", this gives you an idea. :-)

Re: Know Labs unveils glucose monitor that swaps fingersticks for RF sensors

#78

Post by idealmedtech »

pacman2 wrote: post #77
idealmedtech wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Real" blood glucose is glucose as measured by a reference standard device, like the YSI 2500, arterial blood gas machine etc. Finger pricks are accurate to within ~15% of the real blood sugar, and reference machines like the YSI are accurate to within ~1%.

Exactly. And I doubt that this device is used in any lab, except in a clinical lab setting. I have seen it in clinical trials. Focus on the word "arterial blood", this gives you an idea. :-)

Sure, it's a very bulky device and expensive to run! But, when you're talking about 'real' blood glucose, it's the gold standard that you need to use to pass regulatory scrutiny.

Re: Know Labs unveils glucose monitor that swaps fingersticks for RF sensors

#79

Post by btowngar »

tempdiabetic wrote: post #70
idealmedtech wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've done accuracy studies of the G6 for a submission to the FDA, and while it's true they do filter out spikes, they're never more than 5mg/dL off from the measured value (which itself is usually within 10% of the real value). Interstitial lags are closer to 5 minutes when you're not experiencing severe perfusion issues, which is more than close enough for making dosing decision, especially considering subcutaneous…

Any diabetic can confirm for themselves my claim about the Dexcom G6's unacceptable persistent error states. Simply compare the CGM with your glucometer (testing 8x per day, for example), and watch the CGM go wrong (and stay wrong) on day 5 or 6 of using the sensor. I wish what you said was true. I would love to have a CGM that works better than a glucometer, but they don't exist yet. In particular, the Dexcom G6 is…

I’m T1 and I use the G6. I used to regularly check against a glucometer multiple times a day (without calibrating) to check accuracy, and found no issues. A blanket statement such as “the Dexcom G6 is inaccurate in a harmful way” is certainly not true in general, even if true for you.

Re: Know Labs unveils glucose monitor that swaps fingersticks for RF sensors

#80

Post by btowngar »

bdcravens wrote: post #36

"...the radiofrequency sensor technology was able to measure glucose levels with accuracy comparable to that of Abbott’s Freestyle Libre continuous glucose monitor..." Then this means it won't eliminate fingersticks 100%. I've never used the Libre, but I use Medtronic's Guardian sensor, which requires calibration twice a day via fingersticks.

Neither the Libre nor the G6 require calibration.
Post reply on HN