Even at the size of a brick, or without conveniently hiding the power supply off-camera, forgoing needles would still be a huge boon to diabetics. Why not get the concept working and demo some hard stats, then miniaturize?
Even at the size of a brick, or without conveniently hiding the power supply off-camera, forgoing needles would still be a huge boon to diabetics. Why not get the concept working and demo some hard stats, then miniaturize?
To clarify, the actual science they did is interesting (to me at least, as someone not in the field). The paper is linked here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s44172-024-00194-4
What is bullshit is the completely unwarranted conclusions in the title or in the quotes in the article. This is classic "science by press release".
If you notice in the paper, they didn't do any testing, at all, with actual humans (or animals) and their blood sugar levels. The paper is mainly about the design of this "metasurface" which they claim allows higher resolution and sensitivity of a millimeter-wave radar system. The leap from what they've done to "no more needles for diabetics" is about 100x of "draw the rest of the owl".
Again, to emphasize, I'm not denigrating the science they've done. I'm denigrating the hyping of it.
They did mention in the article that clinical trials are on-going.
> “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 assessment of the accuracy of the device, no clinical trials are necessary - you simply need to do a test that compares the blood sugar reading from the device against the current gold standard, most likely first in some animal model.
If their device was really as far along as the title and quotes are implying, they would be showered with so much money it would make the Theranos peak valuation look small. The only evidence they've provided (which, again, I'm not saying is insignificant) is that the "metasurface" they have developed enhances the resolution and sensitivity of a radar system against a beaker of water.
Theranos also had an MVP in this sense :)
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 information. Therefore, they published a paper that appears more like a patent application than a research paper with solid data. It’s still noteworthy that it was published in Nature.
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...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noninvasive_glucose_monitor#Ne...
(different technique)
This is not my field of expertise, and maybe I am misunderstanding the papers. But it seems that there is little evidence that non-invasive glucose monitoring via measuring dielectric properties works reliably in practice. No in-the-wild studies, no investigation of potentially confounding factors.
Take for example citation 22 from the paper. A study where the authors propose a new antenna design. They seem to measure how the pancreas changes size during insulin production by monitoring its dielectric properties. IIUC, they look for a dip in the frequency spectrum caused by absorption of a certain frequency band.
But their measurements show an even larger effect when measuring on the thumb instead of the pancreas. This effect is not explained at all. (My guess: after having patients fast for 8-10 hours, giving them glucose will have an effect on the whole metabolism, resulting in higher blood flow, and that's what they measured).
Also, while they operate the antenna in the GHz range, they use a cheap USB soundcard (sampling rate 44.1 kHz) for capturing the signal. I did not understand this at all. They also repeatedly use the term "dielectric radiation". Seems to be a rather uncommon term?
The "machine learning algorithms" mentioned in the title seem to be a simple linear regression? They claim an accuracy of ~90% and show some sample results. The complete study data is only available upon request, however.
[22] S.J. Jebasingh Kirubakaran, M. Anto Bennet, N.R. Shanker, Non-Invasive antenna sensor based continuous glucose monitoring using pancreas dielectric radiation signal energy levels and machine learning algorithms, Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, Volume 85, 2023, 105072, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2023.105072
Edit: read the paper, now more confused
> Commercial CGM devices have certain drawbacks in diabetic measurement during daily activities such as food intake, sleeping, exercise and driving. The drawbacks are continuous radiations from devices
So they think a drawback of CGM is the (Bluetooth) radiation, and their alternative is to zap the pancreas with, um, magic dielectric radiation? Or magic radiation that results in “dielectric” backscatter?
I do find myself wondering whether a watch- or patch-sized object could get a usable NMR signal from glucose. Maybe a neodymium magnet and a very carefully shaped probe antenna to compensate for the horribly nonuniform magnetic field? Maybe an AC field with no permanent magnet at all? I found a reference suggesting that measuring glucose in blood outside the body by 1T NMR is doable but marginal, so this may be a lost cause.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2023.105072
The OP paper is a bit lacking in any actual details of how glucose is being detected…
Usefull? It is if you use it. I do triathlons and knowing exactly where my blood-sugar level is at would allow me to focus better on the type of nutrition and the impact of it while working out. It would also tell me if i was a bit down before a race, so i can take some food.
Basically: this is a game-changer for amateur athletes, which would create a tremendous market for it. People i know already use the patches to measure as well, or lactate measurements, ketone measurements, etc. and that's just at the casual amateur level.
Another application that springs to mind is knowing when to eat instead of just having lunch and sugar-crashing 2 hours later in the office.
If I am connected to my body, I can also feel it by own biological sensors. But I do see the use case, to get another data input, for those cases where I am distracted and don't pay too much attention on myself.
There's a theory that says you basically won't ever gain weight if you prevent your blood sugar from going above a certain level. So it's an objective way of knowing how much to eat and when.
Also, to warn when blood sugar is too low. Some people (myself included) often get so into work (or whatever) that we forget to eat, with adverse consequences. An alert is very helpful.
Preventing non-hereditary diabetes could be much cheaper from a societal perspective.
I measure my heart rate one time for fun. It was insanely high at rest. I felt perfect, full of energy but it was completely obvious i needed to introduce rest days. I conviscated the heart rate monitor and everything was back to normal 3 days later.