4 ms·

> accurately Not nearly accurate enough to make insulin dosing decisions, which is all diabetics care about. For the foreseeable future, non-invasive glucose

> accurately Not nearly accurate enough to make insulin dosing decisions, which is all diabetics care about. For the foreseeable future, non-invasive glucose monitors will be like the scales that measure your body fat through electrical impulses. A neat toy, but not actually useful for medical purposes.

tzs 3y ago
> Not nearly accurate enough to make insulin dosing decisions, which is all diabetics care about It might be all type-1 diabetics care about, but for the 90-95% of diabetics that are type-2 much less accuracy is needed.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 3y ago
  Well, 25% of those type-2 diabetics take insulin, but yes, those that don't take insulin may be able to derive some value from a less accurate sensor. I just don't know why you'd choose the less accurate thing when it's your health. I think the non-invasive stuff makes the most sense for people who don't have diabetes yet. Nothing will be covered by insurance for them and the non-invasive tech might be cheaper, and it can nudge them to make healthier eating decisions.
pedalpete 3y ago
This is enough for non-diabetics who are curious about their diet and looking for data on blood sugar through the day to adjust their diet.
teleforce 3y ago
Don't be too pessimistic regarding the accuracy of non-invasive screening technique, before you know it you will probably be using one of the solutions. This high accuracy digital diagnostic and biomarker problems are way much easier than the level 5 autonomous driving and AGI, and please don't let other people to tell you otherwise. Personally I think they (company/govt agency/research labs) should hire more reseachers and PhD in this field of bio medical engineering to accelerate the efforts for the benefit of humankind. Not surprisingly the medical doctors associations (I am looking at you American Heart Association - AHA) will be up in arms against automated diagnostics screening eventhough you have 99% accuracy or better because of their biased perceptions due to their job insecurities.

tzs 3y ago

> Not nearly accurate enough to make insulin dosing decisions, which is all diabetics care about It might be all type-1 diabetics care about, but for the 90-95% of diabetics that are type-2 much less accuracy is needed.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 3y ago
Well, 25% of those type-2 diabetics take insulin, but yes, those that don't take insulin may be able to derive some value from a less accurate sensor. I just don't know why you'd choose the less accurate thing when it's your health. I think the non-invasive stuff makes the most sense for people who don't have diabetes yet. Nothing will be covered by insurance for them and the non-invasive tech might be cheaper, and it can nudge them to make healthier eating decisions.

pedalpete 3y ago

This is enough for non-diabetics who are curious about their diet and looking for data on blood sugar through the day to adjust their diet.

teleforce 3y ago

Don't be too pessimistic regarding the accuracy of non-invasive screening technique, before you know it you will probably be using one of the solutions. This high accuracy digital diagnostic and biomarker problems are way much easier than the level 5 autonomous driving and AGI, and please don't let other people to tell you otherwise. Personally I think they (company/govt agency/research labs) should hire more reseachers and PhD in this field of bio medical engineering to accelerate the efforts for the benefit of humankind. Not surprisingly the medical doctors associations (I am looking at you American Heart Association - AHA) will be up in arms against automated diagnostics screening eventhough you have 99% accuracy or better because of their biased perceptions due to their job insecurities.