6 ms·
Dangerously wrong oxygen readings in dark-skinned patients spur FDA scrutiny
- 1123581321 4y agoThe 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.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- tarakat 4y ago
- refurb 4y ago”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?
- giraffe_lady 4y agoInteresting 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.
- refurb 4y agoThey 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.
- giraffe_lady 4y agosounds intense
- refurb 4y agoAlways is when money is involved.
- Jordrok 4y agoYou are heavily, heavily overreacting here. Take a breath.
- loonster 4y agoI 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.
- tdeck 4y agoThe 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?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- faeriechangling 4y agoIt’s racially bias because the reading has a systemic statistical error which correlates with race.
- dusted 4y agoAnd somehow this is entirely unrelated to the stigma associated with researching anything that has to do with race.</sarcasm>
- demarq 4y agoI knew the HN comments would be disappointing on this topic.
- anaganisk 4y agoWell it’s hackernews not medicalnews.