6 ms·
Can someone help me on the technical aspects of the blood tests they've developed? On the specifics, I'm afraid nobody can for now. They have refused to peer-r
by gone35 12y ago
Can someone help me on the technical aspects of the blood tests they've developed?
On the specifics, I'm afraid nobody can for now. They have refused to peer-review their protocols and validation data, so their assays are essentially a black box. So far, incredibly, they have managed to get away with this thanks to a glaring regulatory loophole (as the article explains); but sooner or later they'll have to open up if they want their assays to be taken seriously by the medical community.
In broader terms, however, there's been a lot of recent work in the well-established microfluidics [1] literature on whole-blood assays [2], so that can give you a good guess about how they go about their implementation: most likely some form of "lab-on-a-disk" centrifugation for plasma separation and subsequent transport to separate microfluidic optical chambers preloaded with colorimetric reagents for readout, using perhaps a digital camera and some non-kosher/black-boxy form of curve-fitting DSP to increase "sensitivity".
In all I'm very skeptical until they open up and provide peer-reviewed validation data for their assays. There are already several companies doing patented blood microfluidics like Abaxis [3] with peer-reviewed validation, and the enabling technologies have been out in the open in the literature for years, if not decades; so the whole "we are doing a super duper secret awesome thing we can't tell you anything about" sounds rather D-Wavey and fishy to me.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microfluidics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microfluidics
[2] http://mams.rmit.edu.au/vtkd17xbz90ez.pdf http://mams.rmit.edu.au/vtkd17xbz90ez.pdf
[3] http://www.piccoloxpress.com http://www.piccoloxpress.com
- jjoonathan 12y agoIt's not fishy, it's just a business strategy rather than a tech strategy. They have a couple microfluidics assays that are profitable and they suspect these might be patent encumbered (even beyond the troll that they have already brought into the fold by giving him a board position.). Secrecy buys them two things: 1. Their competitors won't know what their loss leaders are. If assays A,B, and C have been optimized to profitability but D and E are still loss leaders, a competitor could use that knowledge by subsidizing demand for D and E (e.g. by undercutting them and forwarding the assay work, whereby the competitor spends $1 to force them to spend $10). 2. Patent trolls (are they really trolls if they spent money to develop the technology and make a product based on it?) won't know what to sue them for.
- MaysonL 12y agoNote however that they are applying for FDA approval of all their proprietary tests.
- thrownaway2424 12y agoWouldn't it be fairly easy to determine their FP/FN figures just by sending them lots of blood samples with known composition? If it's a black box, use black-box testing methods.
- gone35 12y agoLike some form of "mystery lab-testing". Brilliant.