4 ms·

What's preventing something like this from wide-spread use? I'm always amazed (read: disappointed) humans are still involved in so much of the diagnosis process

by ed 11y ago

What's preventing something like this from wide-spread use? I'm always amazed (read: disappointed) humans are still involved in so much of the diagnosis process.

anon4 11y ago
1. People don't trust machines 2. No software company wants to deal with the liability issues An example of a place where technology takes over a large part of the diagnostic process is prescription glasses. Even then, after measuring your absolute dioptres, a human asks you to try a few combinations to find the most comfortable variant.
- hellofunk 11y ago
  People have plenty of trust for machines, it's all around us. Unless you refuse to use an ATM, for example, the most wide-spread robot in the world, you probably trust machines too. Or automatic transmissions or anti-lock brakes. Nearly all of us trust the emergency telephone line when we need it.
Asbostos 11y ago
They needed to do 17 samples at a time to be financially viable. I suspect it's even worse than that and it's just cheaper if you already know what you're looking for and do it the normal way.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  > * They needed to do 17 samples at a time to be financially viable.* Is this an actual fact, or a comedic exaggeration?
  - ghshephard 11y ago
    Underestimate - from the article, "The team can also analyze many patients at once. To do that, they fuse a unique barcode sequence to the viral DNA from each individual sample, before mixing them together and running them through VirCapSeq-VERT. After the system does its thing, the team can check the barcodes to work out which sample each virus came from. “We can do up to 21 at a time, which makes it financially viable,” says Lipkin." So, this is the sort of thing that you would do in bulk with a bunch of samples, not on a retail one-at-a-time basis.
  - sehugg 11y ago
    DNA sequencing is currently done in batches, dozens of samples to a plate. It's cheaper that way.
- tkinom 11y ago
  The DNA Sequencing related techs seem to advancing even faster than Semiconductor techs. I used to work for Applied-biosystem to work on their 2nd gen DNA sequencer ~1996. At that time, sequence the human genome cost ~$1 billion. Today it is < $1000. At that speed, in 10-20 years. They might be able to sequence all the virus in your blood and provide real time info about them with the latest Apple Watch. :-) Still have doubt? Take a look at what high school kid (lady) did to detect ebola.... http://www.techinsider.io/olivia-hallisey-won-the-google-science-fair-with-a-fast-test-for-ebola-2015-9 http://www.techinsider.io/olivia-hallisey-won-the-google-sci...
transfire 11y ago
Three letters: F D A.
- smanuel 11y ago
  Well actually for 2015 FDA has approved 96% of the new drugs [1] so it's not the same old tough regulator it's been before. Or maybe it's just tough for things that work and allows things that shouldn't be allowed [2]. [1] http://www.vox.com/2015/8/20/9182663/fda-rate-drug-approvals http://www.vox.com/2015/8/20/9182663/fda-rate-drug-approvals [2] http://www.vox.com/2015/9/18/9333639/female-pink-viagra-fda-approved http://www.vox.com/2015/9/18/9333639/female-pink-viagra-fda-...
joezydeco 11y ago
Do you mean: "Why won't this eventually be available on a drugstore counter so I can diagnose myself?" The FDA's response for decades is this: you don't have a lab to perform a more detailed confirmation (because false positives sometimes do happen), and you have no doctor or counselor to be there with you when you get the results. I worked for a biotech firm that had an instant HIV test available a long long time ago. It was deemed too irresponsible to let people to check themselves at home because the company (and the FDA, and everyone's lawyers) were afraid of people doing rash things after a positive result. If a false-positive HIV patient killed themselves and the family sues, that would be...bad. Even today, the home-HIV test that's on the market involves you sending in the sample and then getting a phone call with the results.
- ada1981 11y ago
  This is no longer true. When I went I get tested for HIV in SF at the free clinic, they wouldn't do it because they said I wasn't really at risk(!) despite having multiple female partners since my last test, including a Standford doctor who was in the ER all the time.. Anyway, I went to a pharmacy and paid $50 for an at home test kit that did indeed tell me yes/no in about 15 minutes. My brother has taken the same kind of test in NYC.
- maxxxxx 11y ago
  It's ironic that people need to be protected from the shock of a diagnosis but it's OK to shock them with a six figure hospital bill...
ada1981 11y ago
It's a research tool now, just needs an entrepreneur to make one that can be commercialized. Certainly that is the next step..
ChuckMcM 11y ago
Allow me a flippant response, "nothing." Looking at some of the papers that W. Ian Lipkin has published he's been working on this for a while. So as a researcher he provides data which the FDA will use to assess accuracy and viability, meanwhile Columbia will probably lease out the patents (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US20060003352.pdf https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US200600033...) when it issues to a diagnostics company, perhaps to Elizabeth Holmes company (http://www.wired.com/2014/02/elizabeth-holmes-theranos/ http://www.wired.com/2014/02/elizabeth-holmes-theranos/) who will then create a cost effective way to put this into drug stores everywhere, and when you're feeling bad you go in, prick your thumb, and get a text message of everything you might be sick with.

by ed 11y ago

What's preventing something like this from wide-spread use? I'm always amazed (read: disappointed) humans are still involved in so much of the diagnosis process.

anon4 11y ago

1. People don't trust machines 2. No software company wants to deal with the liability issues An example of a place where technology takes over a large part of the diagnostic process is prescription glasses. Even then, after measuring your absolute dioptres, a human asks you to try a few combinations to find the most comfortable variant.

hellofunk 11y ago
People have plenty of trust for machines, it's all around us. Unless you refuse to use an ATM, for example, the most wide-spread robot in the world, you probably trust machines too. Or automatic transmissions or anti-lock brakes. Nearly all of us trust the emergency telephone line when we need it.

Asbostos 11y ago

They needed to do 17 samples at a time to be financially viable. I suspect it's even worse than that and it's just cheaper if you already know what you're looking for and do it the normal way.

pavel_lishin 11y ago
> * They needed to do 17 samples at a time to be financially viable.* Is this an actual fact, or a comedic exaggeration?
- ghshephard 11y ago
  Underestimate - from the article, "The team can also analyze many patients at once. To do that, they fuse a unique barcode sequence to the viral DNA from each individual sample, before mixing them together and running them through VirCapSeq-VERT. After the system does its thing, the team can check the barcodes to work out which sample each virus came from. “We can do up to 21 at a time, which makes it financially viable,” says Lipkin." So, this is the sort of thing that you would do in bulk with a bunch of samples, not on a retail one-at-a-time basis.
- sehugg 11y ago
  DNA sequencing is currently done in batches, dozens of samples to a plate. It's cheaper that way.
tkinom 11y ago
The DNA Sequencing related techs seem to advancing even faster than Semiconductor techs. I used to work for Applied-biosystem to work on their 2nd gen DNA sequencer ~1996. At that time, sequence the human genome cost ~$1 billion. Today it is < $1000. At that speed, in 10-20 years. They might be able to sequence all the virus in your blood and provide real time info about them with the latest Apple Watch. :-) Still have doubt? Take a look at what high school kid (lady) did to detect ebola.... http://www.techinsider.io/olivia-hallisey-won-the-google-science-fair-with-a-fast-test-for-ebola-2015-9 http://www.techinsider.io/olivia-hallisey-won-the-google-sci...

transfire 11y ago

Three letters: F D A.

smanuel 11y ago
Well actually for 2015 FDA has approved 96% of the new drugs [1] so it's not the same old tough regulator it's been before. Or maybe it's just tough for things that work and allows things that shouldn't be allowed [2]. [1] http://www.vox.com/2015/8/20/9182663/fda-rate-drug-approvals http://www.vox.com/2015/8/20/9182663/fda-rate-drug-approvals [2] http://www.vox.com/2015/9/18/9333639/female-pink-viagra-fda-approved http://www.vox.com/2015/9/18/9333639/female-pink-viagra-fda-...

joezydeco 11y ago

Do you mean: "Why won't this eventually be available on a drugstore counter so I can diagnose myself?" The FDA's response for decades is this: you don't have a lab to perform a more detailed confirmation (because false positives sometimes do happen), and you have no doctor or counselor to be there with you when you get the results. I worked for a biotech firm that had an instant HIV test available a long long time ago. It was deemed too irresponsible to let people to check themselves at home because the company (and the FDA, and everyone's lawyers) were afraid of people doing rash things after a positive result. If a false-positive HIV patient killed themselves and the family sues, that would be...bad. Even today, the home-HIV test that's on the market involves you sending in the sample and then getting a phone call with the results.

ada1981 11y ago
This is no longer true. When I went I get tested for HIV in SF at the free clinic, they wouldn't do it because they said I wasn't really at risk(!) despite having multiple female partners since my last test, including a Standford doctor who was in the ER all the time.. Anyway, I went to a pharmacy and paid $50 for an at home test kit that did indeed tell me yes/no in about 15 minutes. My brother has taken the same kind of test in NYC.
maxxxxx 11y ago
It's ironic that people need to be protected from the shock of a diagnosis but it's OK to shock them with a six figure hospital bill...

ada1981 11y ago

It's a research tool now, just needs an entrepreneur to make one that can be commercialized. Certainly that is the next step..

ChuckMcM 11y ago

Allow me a flippant response, "nothing." Looking at some of the papers that W. Ian Lipkin has published he's been working on this for a while. So as a researcher he provides data which the FDA will use to assess accuracy and viability, meanwhile Columbia will probably lease out the patents (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US20060003352.pdf https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US200600033...) when it issues to a diagnostics company, perhaps to Elizabeth Holmes company (http://www.wired.com/2014/02/elizabeth-holmes-theranos/ http://www.wired.com/2014/02/elizabeth-holmes-theranos/) who will then create a cost effective way to put this into drug stores everywhere, and when you're feeling bad you go in, prick your thumb, and get a text message of everything you might be sick with.