Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It appears this depends a lot on what you are testing for. Fingerprick tests for CRP count (basic inflammation test) seem to already be standard practice in hospitals and health clinics. The test machine is the size of a toaster and gives the physician direct results in a minute or two.

Also, for blood glucose, which diabetics need to monitor closely, there is some buzz now around spectrographic (IR/UV) techniques, meaning you don't even have to puncture the skin. That would be huge. Diabetics actually complain more about fingerprick tests for glucose than about insulin injections, which sounds very counter-intuitive to non-diabetics.

What glucose and CRP have in common is that they are small. TFA talks about tests for white blood cells, platelets or HIV, which are much larger. If you compare white blood cells to glucose, they have three orders of magnitude larger radius, so nine orders of magnitude larger volume.

That's like the difference in volume between a raindrop and a blue whale. No wonder different mechanisms may apply.



Also, for blood glucose, which diabetics need to monitor closely, there is some buzz now around spectrographic (IR/UV) techniques, meaning you don't even have to puncture the skin. That would be huge.

It would be huge, yes. But it has been "five years away from being available" for about 25 years. Glucose has a much smaller signal than the Hb / HbO2 signal used for pulse oximetry.

Diabetics actually complain more about fingerprick tests for glucose than about insulin injections, which sounds very counter-intuitive to non-diabetics.

Most non-diabetics think that "injecting insulin" involves hitting a vein. That would be far more painful. Instead, we inject into subcutaneous tissue; and the needles we use are absolutely tiny. It's worth noting that it's very unusual to get any bleeding from an injection site.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: