Dangerously wrong oxygen readings in dark-skinned patients spur FDA scrutiny | Hacker News Reader

Dangerously wrong oxygen readings in dark-skinned patients spur FDA scrutiny

arstechnica.com

The 3x more likely study was troubling. If I read correctly, 11% of darker-skinned patients reading 92-96% were below 88% when measured arterially, compared to about 4% of lighter-skinned patients. The conventional wisdom I’ve heard is to subtract 3-5% for dark skin when the reading is below 90%, and that wouldn’t be sufficient.

And somehow this is entirely unrelated to the stigma associated with researching anything that has to do with race.</sarcasm>

I knew the HN comments would be disappointing on this topic.

Well it’s hackernews not medicalnews.

”For years, studies have found racial bias in common oxygen-measuring devices called pulse oximeters”

This writing is terrible. How is a meter biases against “race”? Does the meter give an incorrect reading for a light skinned black person but a better reading for a dark skinned white person of the same color?

Interesting detail to focus on. Would not have occurred to me anyway.

Is there a more accurate but still commonly used word that most english speakers would understanding as roughly grouping people by the shade of their skin?

Also is it possible that it does break down across the same lines we'd draw for "race?" For example I have pretty dark skin for my national origin, am usually, but not always, considered white at first glance. There are certainly black people with skin as light as mine, but our "tones" are usually quite different. It's not absurd to me that details like that could affect sensors like this.

They could have just said "For years, studies have found skin-color bias in common oxygen-measuring devices called pulse oximeters..."

It would have been factually accurate since it's skin color that's the issue.

Of course Arstechnica already knew that.

Look at the FDA documents linked in the article. The FDA says "The committee will discuss ongoing concerns that pulse oximeters may be less accurate in individuals with darker skin pigmentations."

It was never really about race, it was about skin color (the two are loosely associated), but Artechnica knows that "race" gets more clicks I assume.

I like to call these types of authors "racial carpetbaggers" - unscrupulous opportunists using race to further their own aims.

sounds intense

Always is when money is involved.

You are heavily, heavily overreacting here. Take a breath.

I consider it valid criticism. It does not need to be a racial issue.

When I was growing up, I was one of the few white kids in my circle of friends. One of the kids was always beating his chest on how the white man is keeping the brown man down. This is exactly the type of nonsense he would bring up.

The pulse oximeter wasn't purposely designed to give false readings to darker people.

The pulse oximeter was apparently not properly tested or calibrated on dark skinned people, despite being a widely used medical device. You don't see evidence of bias there, when people with darker skin are an afterthought?

> You don't see evidence of bias there, when people with darker skin are an afterthought?

I see a bias. However, maybe the testing was done only on poor white people because that's what the testing company employed (due to operating in a poor country with no significant "coloured" people population). Everybody wants to save money. Test results almost do not matter if the test is "done". Especially when "best practice" comes from SW.

This is the entire point of the article - that inadequate testing can lead to inaccurate results. The point isn't that "the device is biased and therefore its makers are bad people", it's to highlight a clear-cut case where cutting costs by doing such limited testing leads to negative outcomes.

I don't think it's an over-reaction at all. Racial inequality is a hot topic, as well it should be -- it's a given that media outlets will use hot topics as a means to make money; the problem here is that brewing up anger over a supposed racial bias is entirely incorrect and potentially damning for no good reason.

Little effort is needed to provoke outrage about racial discrimination, I think that it's up to good citizens, particularly journalists or those with a 'loud voice' to make sure that they don't stir the pot and create unneeded tensions and hatred for no good reason other than more clicks.

It would take a lot to make me believe that the wording wasn't purposeful.

Who exactly is brewing up anger here? The only people I see getting angry are the ones in these comments who are so easily triggered by the word "race".

If he were wrong, you'd have been able to formulate a better response than tone policing.

How's this for an argument: hyper-fixating on the word "race" in this context completely derails productive conversations about the importance of testing medical devices on a diverse range of subjects and instead turns it into yet another stupid culture war. Would the article have been substantially different if the phrase "skin color bias" had been substituted for "racial bias"? No! Absolutely not! So let's all calm the fuck down and stop getting so bent out of shape that someone had the audacity to use the 'r' word!

That's a bit better, but "productive conversation" is subjective. His comment drives the conversation in a direction other than the one you prefer, but that is merely your preference.

Ok, and I would argue that anyone who values the second topic over the first has their priorities seriously out of whack and needs to do some soul searching.

Colorism is a pretty huge issue in many countries as well, with women buying skin lighting creams because they think it will help them in romance and work. This seems like a big reaction to a minor point because skin color is obviously tied up with racial identity, we literally have two groups of people called “black people” and “white people”.

> we literally have two groups of people called “black people” and “white people”.

Huh ? There are no "white people" or "black people". Just take a look at the people around you: everyone has its own colour given by genetics, sun exposure, origin, diet (a sick liver darkens a bit your skin for example). I've seen people with a skin like milk chocolate.

They just did a quick testing to get the aproval and called it a day. Testing is hard and expensive.

It’s racially bias because the reading has a systemic statistical error which correlates with race.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com