6 ms·

If you put a popular device, with a medical detection tool into the wider population, it would be logical that the device would pick up on patients who would ot

If you put a popular device, with a medical detection tool into the wider population, it would be logical that the device would pick up on patients who would other not notice the symptoms (at least initially, if any). So then the question becomes what other daily device(s) could be made to do automatic health checks of certain specific indicators, which would give an early indication to the possible condition, thus improving life expectancy and quality of life, while lowering associated medical costs. i.e. toothbrushes that detect cavities, sunglasses that check your pupils for certain symptoms, hats that monitor your EEG. These are obviously extreme examples, but you get the idea...

gonzo41 8y ago
I've read about automated phone calls to the elderly to build up data on response times. It was a dementia early detection tool. Seemed to be a pretty smart approach just to ring the home phone or mobile and ask for them to say a word. Takes no time.an requires recall and cognition. Also confirms the old person isn't dead.
- w-ll 8y ago
  I think this is an interesting idea, but it also reminds me of this youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=760uy8Oa_XM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=760uy8Oa_XM The lady complains but I think she enjoins it. It's fun to complain and be heard, even if it seams minuscule annoyances to any observer.
- Latteland 8y ago
  Would you like this if you were an old person (maybe any person)? Faceless machine bugs you at home (were you napping?), rates you and you can't speak to a human about it. No one would like this. It is an interesting idea.
dwhit 8y ago
A toilet that monitored urine and stool samples would be a major lifesaver.
- robbomacrae 8y ago
  Toilabs. Just started out doing just that.
- peteretep 8y ago
  This strikes me as an exceptionally difficult problem to solve. I'll be impressed if someone brings a workable solution to market in any reasonable time-frame. I guess if you can retrain people in how they use their toilet, you might be able to simplify some of the challenges, but many people use their toilet as a generalized soft/liquid garbage can.
  - henvic 8y ago
    Hopefully not a Theranos lol What if on major airports (or other similar venues) there were paid toilets where you could do whatever business you want to do there and exit, only to receive a test result later on if something weird showed up? Could this be doable? Perhaps by taking a photo of the solid & liquid expelled from your body and trying to eliminate or reduce water contamination from the solid parts, and collecting it as you usually do in a lab? Sorry if this all sounds stupid. My experience with biology is close to zero, and I have no clue about what I'm talking about — just thinking out loud.
  - paul7986 8y ago
    Well that’s just it the UX of using a toilet would remain the same and the smart toilet wpuld collect the sample(as a toilet does now)/analyze it and send the data if it detects irregularities to your doctor. He/she then analyzes it and schedules a follow up appointment if needed.
    - peteretep 8y ago
      Keeping the user experience the same — I suspect — will be excessively difficult
      - paul7986 8y ago
        How so you use the toilet as you always would and everything is done automatically by the smart toilet.
ordinaryradical 8y ago
This take on wearables is way more exciting to me than AR. Unmediated reality and good health sounds like a much better future than the alternatives.
azhenley 8y ago
This is indeed an awesome area that I’ve barely ever considered. If I had to go do another PhD, it might be in this. I’ve seen research about using cell phones to detect drug use (and try to prevent the urge). What other everyday objects could be utilized? What about my phone’s front facing camera to scan my face looking for muscle twitches or eye issues?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
barry-cotter 8y ago
This will lead to a massive increase in false positives, unnecessary treatment and worry; par for the course for precautionary screening and preventive medicine generally. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/upshot/preventive-health-care-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/upshot/preventive-health-... > Preventive Care Saves Money? Sorry, It’s Too Good to Be True > The idea that spending more on preventive care will reduce overall health care spending is widely believed and often promoted as a reason to support reform. It’s thought that too many people with chronic illnesses wait until they are truly ill before seeking care, often in emergency rooms, where it costs more. It should follow then that treating diseases earlier, or screening for them before they become more serious, would wind up saving money in the long run. > Unfortunately, almost none of this is true.
- ultraluminous 8y ago
  Pretty much the entirety of the article you're selectively quoting is praising preventative care. The byline is "Contrary to conventional wisdom, it tends to cost money, but it improves quality of life at a very reasonable price." and the article closes with this But money doesn’t have to be saved to make something worthwhile. Prevention improves outcomes. It makes people healthier. It improves quality of life. It often does so for a very reasonable price. There are many good arguments for increasing our focus on prevention. Almost all have to do with improving quality, though, not reducing spending. We would do well to admit that and move forward. Sometimes good things cost money.
  - barry-cotter 8y ago
    I’m not arguing over affect, I’m arguing over truth claims. The article leads with the facts and then argues that despite being a poor use of money we should still pay for preventive medicine for the warm fuzzy feelings it gives us. Pay attention to the facts, not the argument that we should ignore the facts for the warm fuzzy feelings. If we’re going to spend huge amounts of money we should spend it better than on preventive care, on areas where the money can do more good. That money could be spent on foreign aid, on saving lives, not improving them, on earned income tax credit, to encourage people to get back into work or gain more work experience, on basic research or subsidy to get us to carbon neutral faster. And the article completely fails to note the false positives, the unnecessary tests and the worry caused by preventive screening. Money spent on preventive medicine isn’t wasted but it could certainly be better spent. > In 2009, as part of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Synthesis Project, Sarah Goodell, Joshua Cohen and Peter Neumann exhaustively explored the evidence. They examined more than 500 peer-reviewed studies that looked at primary (stopping something from happening in the first place) or secondary (stopping something from getting worse) prevention. Of all the interventions they looked at, only two were truly cost-saving: childhood immunizations (a no-brainer) and the counseling of adults on the use of low-dose aspirin. An additional 15 preventive services were cost-effective, meaning that they cost less than $50,000 to $100,000 per quality adjusted life-year gained.
paul7986 8y ago
What about the toilet ... can feces/specimen data be used to catch health issues early on? I know urine can. The Smart toilet idea has been parodied a lot though and none exist as far as I know. Maybe it’s just not feasible?
jchw 8y ago
As someone who suffers from a bit of health anxiety: let's at least be very careful about false positives and inaccurate tests. The mere suggestion of health issues have sent me down spirals before.
dehrmann 8y ago
> thus improving life expectancy and quality of life, while lowering associated medical costs Be careful with this. Look into the result of increase PSA testing: > Although experts are somewhat split on the value of PSA tests as a screening tool, there is widespread agreement on two major points: overdiagnosis and overtreatment rates are far too high, and there is an urgent need to refine PSA testing to be a more effective screening tool. [1] Or mammograms > We conclude that the mammography FP rate in North America is in excess... [2] Arguably, the issue is that we just lack good baseline data, but you have to consider all the false positives you'll get with more data collection. [1]: https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/the-pros-and-cons-of-psa-screening https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/the-pros-and-cons-... [2]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5124917/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5124917/

gonzo41 8y ago

I've read about automated phone calls to the elderly to build up data on response times. It was a dementia early detection tool. Seemed to be a pretty smart approach just to ring the home phone or mobile and ask for them to say a word. Takes no time.an requires recall and cognition. Also confirms the old person isn't dead.

w-ll 8y ago
I think this is an interesting idea, but it also reminds me of this youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=760uy8Oa_XM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=760uy8Oa_XM The lady complains but I think she enjoins it. It's fun to complain and be heard, even if it seams minuscule annoyances to any observer.
Latteland 8y ago
Would you like this if you were an old person (maybe any person)? Faceless machine bugs you at home (were you napping?), rates you and you can't speak to a human about it. No one would like this. It is an interesting idea.

dwhit 8y ago

A toilet that monitored urine and stool samples would be a major lifesaver.

robbomacrae 8y ago
Toilabs. Just started out doing just that.
peteretep 8y ago
This strikes me as an exceptionally difficult problem to solve. I'll be impressed if someone brings a workable solution to market in any reasonable time-frame. I guess if you can retrain people in how they use their toilet, you might be able to simplify some of the challenges, but many people use their toilet as a generalized soft/liquid garbage can.
- henvic 8y ago
  Hopefully not a Theranos lol What if on major airports (or other similar venues) there were paid toilets where you could do whatever business you want to do there and exit, only to receive a test result later on if something weird showed up? Could this be doable? Perhaps by taking a photo of the solid & liquid expelled from your body and trying to eliminate or reduce water contamination from the solid parts, and collecting it as you usually do in a lab? Sorry if this all sounds stupid. My experience with biology is close to zero, and I have no clue about what I'm talking about — just thinking out loud.
- paul7986 8y ago
  Well that’s just it the UX of using a toilet would remain the same and the smart toilet wpuld collect the sample(as a toilet does now)/analyze it and send the data if it detects irregularities to your doctor. He/she then analyzes it and schedules a follow up appointment if needed.
  - peteretep 8y ago
    Keeping the user experience the same — I suspect — will be excessively difficult
    - paul7986 8y ago
      How so you use the toilet as you always would and everything is done automatically by the smart toilet.

ordinaryradical 8y ago

This take on wearables is way more exciting to me than AR. Unmediated reality and good health sounds like a much better future than the alternatives.

azhenley 8y ago

This is indeed an awesome area that I’ve barely ever considered. If I had to go do another PhD, it might be in this. I’ve seen research about using cell phones to detect drug use (and try to prevent the urge). What other everyday objects could be utilized? What about my phone’s front facing camera to scan my face looking for muscle twitches or eye issues?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

barry-cotter 8y ago

This will lead to a massive increase in false positives, unnecessary treatment and worry; par for the course for precautionary screening and preventive medicine generally. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/upshot/preventive-health-care-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/upshot/preventive-health-... > Preventive Care Saves Money? Sorry, It’s Too Good to Be True > The idea that spending more on preventive care will reduce overall health care spending is widely believed and often promoted as a reason to support reform. It’s thought that too many people with chronic illnesses wait until they are truly ill before seeking care, often in emergency rooms, where it costs more. It should follow then that treating diseases earlier, or screening for them before they become more serious, would wind up saving money in the long run. > Unfortunately, almost none of this is true.

ultraluminous 8y ago
Pretty much the entirety of the article you're selectively quoting is praising preventative care. The byline is "Contrary to conventional wisdom, it tends to cost money, but it improves quality of life at a very reasonable price." and the article closes with this But money doesn’t have to be saved to make something worthwhile. Prevention improves outcomes. It makes people healthier. It improves quality of life. It often does so for a very reasonable price. There are many good arguments for increasing our focus on prevention. Almost all have to do with improving quality, though, not reducing spending. We would do well to admit that and move forward. Sometimes good things cost money.
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  I’m not arguing over affect, I’m arguing over truth claims. The article leads with the facts and then argues that despite being a poor use of money we should still pay for preventive medicine for the warm fuzzy feelings it gives us. Pay attention to the facts, not the argument that we should ignore the facts for the warm fuzzy feelings. If we’re going to spend huge amounts of money we should spend it better than on preventive care, on areas where the money can do more good. That money could be spent on foreign aid, on saving lives, not improving them, on earned income tax credit, to encourage people to get back into work or gain more work experience, on basic research or subsidy to get us to carbon neutral faster. And the article completely fails to note the false positives, the unnecessary tests and the worry caused by preventive screening. Money spent on preventive medicine isn’t wasted but it could certainly be better spent. > In 2009, as part of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Synthesis Project, Sarah Goodell, Joshua Cohen and Peter Neumann exhaustively explored the evidence. They examined more than 500 peer-reviewed studies that looked at primary (stopping something from happening in the first place) or secondary (stopping something from getting worse) prevention. Of all the interventions they looked at, only two were truly cost-saving: childhood immunizations (a no-brainer) and the counseling of adults on the use of low-dose aspirin. An additional 15 preventive services were cost-effective, meaning that they cost less than $50,000 to $100,000 per quality adjusted life-year gained.

paul7986 8y ago

What about the toilet ... can feces/specimen data be used to catch health issues early on? I know urine can. The Smart toilet idea has been parodied a lot though and none exist as far as I know. Maybe it’s just not feasible?

jchw 8y ago

As someone who suffers from a bit of health anxiety: let's at least be very careful about false positives and inaccurate tests. The mere suggestion of health issues have sent me down spirals before.

dehrmann 8y ago

> thus improving life expectancy and quality of life, while lowering associated medical costs Be careful with this. Look into the result of increase PSA testing: > Although experts are somewhat split on the value of PSA tests as a screening tool, there is widespread agreement on two major points: overdiagnosis and overtreatment rates are far too high, and there is an urgent need to refine PSA testing to be a more effective screening tool. [1] Or mammograms > We conclude that the mammography FP rate in North America is in excess... [2] Arguably, the issue is that we just lack good baseline data, but you have to consider all the false positives you'll get with more data collection. [1]: https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/the-pros-and-cons-of-psa-screening https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/the-pros-and-cons-... [2]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5124917/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5124917/