Tell you one thing -- if scammers can remotely read credit card info now for identity theft, then a tricorder ought to be do-able.
Someone upthread mentioned xrays and ultrasound, but how does that help anything? Without a vast amount of optical processing, a mobile device is never going to understand the output of that. Alternatively, if a human does it, mustn't I already be at the doctor's office?
And if the device says "No, this doesn't match anything in my database"? What direction is that a step in?
Chemicals in breath, or better yet urine, could be good. But redness, moles and especially "lopsided stance"? You people have never programmed a computer. It's going to take years of research and testing to look for those things.
Despite Apple demoing the ability for download Blood Glucose results directly to an iPhone over 4 years ago, the device hasn't made it to market.
I wonder why, but suspect the companies don't want it happening, even if it was technological possible. Though it might be easier if everyone had implanted chips that monitored their health. Companies would love that.
Chemicals in breath, or better yet urine, could be good. But redness, moles and especially "lopsided stance"? You people have never programmed a computer. It's going to take years of research and testing to look for those things. -- DU
Right, and the fact that you don't get screened for skin cancer by someone pointing a camera at you and computing fractal geometry means, in general, that the technique doesn't provide the specificity and robustness needed to actually be a clinically-workable technique and pass the required review processes. -- BlueDuke
To be clear, I think working to advance the development of the sensors and algorithms is a good thing, but it's also a good thing to be realistic about the current state of the art and not conflate academic research papers with something that is fieldable. -- BlueDuke
In five years even the poorest countries with be awash in iPhones. Probably better than the ones we have now. You read it here first. - a_girl_irl
The diagnostic accuracy for two dermatologists each with > 10 years experience in dermatology was 80%, with sensitivity of 91% and positive predictive value of 86%. Diagnostic accuracy rates for two senior registrars (each with 3–5 years experience) and six registrars (each with 1–2 years experience) were 62% and 56%, respectively.
In a prospective multicenter study, investigators compared the diagnostic performance of MelaFind with that of a group of experienced dermatologists. This study included 1383 patients with 1632 evaluated pigmented lesions, including 127 histologically confirmed MMs (45% in situ melanomas; median Breslow thickness of invasive lesions: 0.36 mm). The MelaFind device missed only 2 melanomas (125 of 127 detected), yielding a 98.4% sensitivity. This compared favorably to the average biopsy sensitivity (78%) of the dermatologists. When factoring in borderline melanocytic lesions (atypical melanocytic proliferations, high-grade or severely dysplastic nevi), the sensitivity of MelaFind remained an impressive 98.3%. For pigmented lesions that had been referred for evaluation to rule out MM, MelaFind had an average diagnostic specificity of 9.9%, superior to the clinicians' average specificity (3.7%). Unfortunately, the device also has a high false-positive rate, with one study showing that pigmented lesions identified by MelaFind as being suspicious turned out not to be melanomas in up to 15% of cases.
Actually, he said
It's going to take years of research and testing to look for those things.
Seems like it's you that's misreading his statement.
I guess what I'm saying is it seems to be solving the wrong problem. It isn't going to make healthcare more widespread in poor communities, for instance, because they can't afford iPhones anyway. If a doctor carries one in, couldn't s/he already do these tests? The problem is not lack of sensors. The problem is also not a lack of access to sensors. The problem is a lack of access to *knowledge* (in the form of doctors and nurses).
If you built an ultrasound engine and transducer that did work without gel or direct contact, you'd probably have a system that was so powerful that the FDA would never approve it, because it could cook a patient's tissue. Also, ultrasound technicians do not interpret the images they capture. Doctors do that.
« Older Top five regrets of the dying.... | Times might be hard, but roman... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt