Comments
Yet-Another_Burner t1_iqmesed wrote
If I were in this field I’d be real careful making any claims about “a drop of blood”
archimedesrex t1_iqmhhlp wrote
For real. Everything I've heard from experts in field is that a drop of blood is just too small of a sample size. Too easy not have any trace of pathogen simply because your drop was the wrong drop.
JimJalinsky t1_iqmu9oe wrote
This isn’t making the claim that it can run every blood test known to man.
RarewareUsedToBeGood t1_iqmx9xh wrote
This would be interesting to apply a DEEP learning molecular fingerprint for lots of neurologic diseases that have some type of mix of proteins passing the blood brain barrier.
And then extrapolating from that, I wonder how many other applications of diagnosis machine learning can assist with just looking at combos of proteins/nucleic acids/etc. in the periphery.
Rice-A-Romney t1_iqmy8wr wrote
The link doesn't work for me, is this a microfluidic system? It makes so much sense to use microfluidic platforms for diagnostic medicine, it's a shame that Theranos has really tainted that avenue of research. Hopefully good old fashioned peer reviewed work can slowly win this back into people's good graces.
xmashamm t1_iqnh85m wrote
Yes, so a more realistic take.
Kaeny t1_iqo3fa0 wrote
Just googled and the biggest physically possible drop of water is 9mm in diameter.
I wonder how small “less than a drop of blood” is
FloatingSignifiers t1_iqo4dwd wrote
Elizabeth Holmes sighs loudly
Coreadrin t1_iqocsd9 wrote
Yes, there's a disgusting 'reproducibility crisis' going on in science with all these guvbucks flying around the last few decades. It's almost 100% necessary before you believe anything these days.
jpollack40 t1_iqoetos wrote
I'm not familiar with this field at all, but I would hazard a guess that this statement is more a way to communicate how sensitive this equipment is as opposed to the workflow to use it. I'm sure whatever that workflow is it accounts for the minimum volume of blood necessary to achieve the most accurate results. That wouldn't necessarily change the fact that all the equipment needs is one drop of the "right" blood that includes the material to detect a tumor.
The cynic side of me would say phrasing like that is more geared towards potential investors than anything. Because I don't disagree that this may be technically correct but at the very least hyperbolic if not misleading.
Sparkybear t1_iqomare wrote
Phrasing like this is straight out of Elizabeth Holmes' Theranos playbook.
trextra t1_iqopktr wrote
Also, this is a press release, not the actual journal article. I’ll also withhold judgment until I can read that.
Neither-Cup564 t1_iqp3t4b wrote
Right, the issue wasn’t that you couldnt test something with a drop of blood it was that the amount of blood needed to test all of those things and in such a short time wasn’t and isn’t possible.
Estesz t1_iqpp72y wrote
I'm so excited.
Either we get cool new diagnostics or a dozen of unsettling documentaries and filmings.
Bloodsword83 t1_iqq4i1j wrote
For real. The last time I went and had my blood tests done, they pulled like six vials of blood.
[deleted] t1_iqqfkg1 wrote
[removed]
AutoModerator t1_iqm5gid wrote
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.