3 ms·

Theranos is working on a technology that will exist in the near future, confirmed by many many other companies working on it, so it seems quite likely: someone

Theranos is working on a technology that will exist in the near future, confirmed by many many other companies working on it, so it seems quite likely: someone will succeed in using less blood, to run more tests. That doesn't sound like a totally alien idea, and since Theranos will probably not deliver on this promise fully, someone else likely will. However, the uBeam sounds super dubious. I think wireless energy is probably possible, but without a prototype a consumer could feasibly use in their home, and the large amount if scientists I coming out against this a few years ago doesn't seem to have shrunk. So, yes it is a really hard interesting problem, but all the fun ones are. I wouldn't have invested with the expectation of success, but that the technology developed could be used for something else/is valuable.

w1ntermute 10y ago
> Theranos is working on a technology that will exist in the near future, confirmed by many many other companies working on it, so it seems quite likely: someone will succeed in using less blood, to run more tests. Except we don't need more blood tests[0]. With uBeam, there's no doubt that if the technology works, it would be a game-changer. Theranos was facing both technical and market challenges, but with uBeam, it's a purely technical challenge. 0: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/theranos-is-wrong-we-dont-need-more-blood-tests/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/theranos-is-wrong-we-don...
- qaq 10y ago
  I can't agree more our startup is working on time travel there's no doubt that if the technology works, it would be a game-changer. Since it's a purely technical challenge we expect to raise a trillion dollars in our seed round.
  - twic 10y ago
    And if not, pivot to perpetual motion, like this chap: https://vimeo.com/148032441 https://vimeo.com/148032441
  - malz 10y ago
    I should point out that time travel would fix the phone charging problem quite handily. Just send your phone back in time a few hours. Not sure if there are other applications.
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    You don't even need to do this - if you need a trillion dollars then just get in your time machine once it is built, head back 25 before today and invest $1 in all the hot stocks and winning lotto number so that by today you have the trillion you need to build the time machine. Simple.
- vonklaus 10y ago
  I disagree with that article as it makes no sense. Their assertion that tests === diagnostics that map 1:1 to a disease was baseless. Tests don't answer the question "doe patient have diabetes?", they answer the question "what is the patients glucose level?" 115 mg/dl. Maybe the patient forgot to fast, maybe the test was a fluke? Either way a consistent average of 85 would put that out of range. SO I found the five thirty eight article stupid so I guess I misunderstood why more health data would be bad.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - kevinnk 10y ago
    The 538 article actually makes a lot of sense and is a pretty decent introduction to a common public health issue. > Their assertion that tests === diagnostics that map 1:1 to a disease was baseless. Tests don't answer the question "doe patient have diabetes?", they answer the question "what is the patients glucose level?" 115 mg/dl. Medical tests that aren't actionable aren't useful. So while you're correct in a very narrow sense, you have to use the results to make a decision about treatment. If you're going to make treatment decisions based on tests that have some amount of inherent error, you may end up over or under-treating patients. > Maybe the patient forgot to fast, maybe the test was a fluke? Either way a consistent average of 85 would put that out of range. Medical tests have both random and systematic error. What you're talking about is random error (i.e. a single test result being bad). However, many tests have systematic error (i.e. the result being wrong every time the test is taken) just due to personal variation in what's "normal". The article makes the point that if more tests lead to worse outcomes[1] (due to overtreatment) then adding more tests is useless or worse than useless. This effect is particularly pronounced when testing across large populations, even if the test is highly accurate. [1] And in many cases they do. For example, early mammogram screenings result in worse outcomes for patients when done across a large population. See http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2480757 http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2480757
    - cperciva 10y ago
      Medical tests that aren't actionable aren't useful. True, but screening tests are very useful. If you can separate the population into "definitely diabetic", "definitely not diabetic", and "needs more testing" quickly and cheaply, that's a win. The fact that it doesn't always give you an actionable result doesn't make it useless.
onion2k 10y ago
I don't think they will. Or rather they won't deliver anything as good as what they promise. Imagine you're testing for something that requires 10 modified white blood cells per million. A pinprick drop of blood has about 7,000,000 white blood cells in it. So you might expect to see 70 modified cells... but only if those cells are evenly distributed throughout the patients blood. They're not. They're randomly distributed. So the statistical likelihood of getting a false negative is high. The answer to that is to take more blood, from a vein. You can't make a more accurate test because you simply don't have the necessary information. If you do take more blood then the test gets as expensive as a normal test and you no longer have any cost advantage.

w1ntermute 10y ago

> Theranos is working on a technology that will exist in the near future, confirmed by many many other companies working on it, so it seems quite likely: someone will succeed in using less blood, to run more tests. Except we don't need more blood tests[0]. With uBeam, there's no doubt that if the technology works, it would be a game-changer. Theranos was facing both technical and market challenges, but with uBeam, it's a purely technical challenge. 0: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/theranos-is-wrong-we-dont-need-more-blood-tests/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/theranos-is-wrong-we-don...

qaq 10y ago
I can't agree more our startup is working on time travel there's no doubt that if the technology works, it would be a game-changer. Since it's a purely technical challenge we expect to raise a trillion dollars in our seed round.
- twic 10y ago
  And if not, pivot to perpetual motion, like this chap: https://vimeo.com/148032441 https://vimeo.com/148032441
- malz 10y ago
  I should point out that time travel would fix the phone charging problem quite handily. Just send your phone back in time a few hours. Not sure if there are other applications.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  You don't even need to do this - if you need a trillion dollars then just get in your time machine once it is built, head back 25 before today and invest $1 in all the hot stocks and winning lotto number so that by today you have the trillion you need to build the time machine. Simple.
vonklaus 10y ago
I disagree with that article as it makes no sense. Their assertion that tests === diagnostics that map 1:1 to a disease was baseless. Tests don't answer the question "doe patient have diabetes?", they answer the question "what is the patients glucose level?" 115 mg/dl. Maybe the patient forgot to fast, maybe the test was a fluke? Either way a consistent average of 85 would put that out of range. SO I found the five thirty eight article stupid so I guess I misunderstood why more health data would be bad.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- kevinnk 10y ago
  The 538 article actually makes a lot of sense and is a pretty decent introduction to a common public health issue. > Their assertion that tests === diagnostics that map 1:1 to a disease was baseless. Tests don't answer the question "doe patient have diabetes?", they answer the question "what is the patients glucose level?" 115 mg/dl. Medical tests that aren't actionable aren't useful. So while you're correct in a very narrow sense, you have to use the results to make a decision about treatment. If you're going to make treatment decisions based on tests that have some amount of inherent error, you may end up over or under-treating patients. > Maybe the patient forgot to fast, maybe the test was a fluke? Either way a consistent average of 85 would put that out of range. Medical tests have both random and systematic error. What you're talking about is random error (i.e. a single test result being bad). However, many tests have systematic error (i.e. the result being wrong every time the test is taken) just due to personal variation in what's "normal". The article makes the point that if more tests lead to worse outcomes[1] (due to overtreatment) then adding more tests is useless or worse than useless. This effect is particularly pronounced when testing across large populations, even if the test is highly accurate. [1] And in many cases they do. For example, early mammogram screenings result in worse outcomes for patients when done across a large population. See http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2480757 http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2480757
  - cperciva 10y ago
    Medical tests that aren't actionable aren't useful. True, but screening tests are very useful. If you can separate the population into "definitely diabetic", "definitely not diabetic", and "needs more testing" quickly and cheaply, that's a win. The fact that it doesn't always give you an actionable result doesn't make it useless.

onion2k 10y ago

I don't think they will. Or rather they won't deliver anything as good as what they promise. Imagine you're testing for something that requires 10 modified white blood cells per million. A pinprick drop of blood has about 7,000,000 white blood cells in it. So you might expect to see 70 modified cells... but only if those cells are evenly distributed throughout the patients blood. They're not. They're randomly distributed. So the statistical likelihood of getting a false negative is high. The answer to that is to take more blood, from a vein. You can't make a more accurate test because you simply don't have the necessary information. If you do take more blood then the test gets as expensive as a normal test and you no longer have any cost advantage.