Slashdot Mirror
Retina Blood Vessels Predict Common Fatal Diseases
An anonymous reader writes "LiveScience is reporting that Tien Wong, of the Center for Eye Research Australia at the University of Melbourne, is claiming that abnormalities in the blood vessels of the retina can be used to predict diabetes, hypertension, stroke, and heart disease. These results were the culmination of several large studies. This could go a long way towards advancing medicine in the developed world as these disorders are some of the most common causes of death, hospitalization, and disability."
. . . with the potential to prolong many lives -- except that insurance companies will use the information to deny coverage, making it impossible for those identified to afford care.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
The retina's probably got some of the most exposed nerves in our body that are directly viewable without surgery. in fact, i bet they could detect other things like the usage of a certain plant just by looking at the retina!
...I'm just on an eight day cocaine/speed/Red Bull bender.
When I first went to a good eye doctor in 2002, she told me that the retina can tell a lot about a person's general health. She claimed she saved several patients lives when she found cholestorol build up in the vessels of the eye.
Nevertheless this is a good nonintrusive way to diagnose someone.
The Yellow Emperor's Classic of Medicine : A New Translation of the Neijing Suwen with Commentary (Paperback)
Chinese holistic medicine further supported by advances in technology. As in the the whole is one.
As in the three pulses at different levels and on diffrent sides reflectng the internal conditions and the condition of internal systems via the determination of the vitality of chi within the specific meridians which coincide generally with the various systems of the human body.
I know iridology is bunk, but I wonder if at least some aspects will aid in clinical diagnosis in the future. "Rings around the retina" indicating problems with the pancreas, ie diabetes, etc (I don't know what iridology believes, just making up stuff for example).
It would be interesting to look back in 20 years and see if they got anything right, or if they were a bunch of loons afterall.
I believe that the eye can show us much more than we currently think it can, it is just a matter of sorting through the BS.
If this is true, I sure as hell don't want my employer, or the government to have pictures of my retina to implement biometric security.
AccountKiller
Microhaemorrhages (bleeds) and aneurysms (a bulging section of a vessel) may be present due to hypertension in the vessels because of diabetic changes to the retinal vessels, or systemic hypertension. Having more blood vessels than usual indicates that the existing ones are not supplying enough oxygen, as will be the case in advanced diabetes. Changes in the macular (the part of the eye that sees most detail) can be apparent if the diabetes is causing problems with vision.
Stroke, heart disease, hypertension and atheroscelerosis are all intimately linked anyway - people at risk of one are often at risk of others. And it's difficult to characterise the changes to a specific cause. But they're still an important thing to look at.
Another time a doctor will look at the retina, is in an emergency situation where the is a blow to the head, they'll look for papilloedema (a swelling behind the retina due to increased pressure inside the skull). This also happens with other causes of high intracranial pressure, such as tumours.
Are you fat? If yes then you probably have a health problem that will just get worse with time. Here's a health tip- add up how much sodium is in the food & drinks you consume everyday.
This is old news? I knew that I've had hypertension for a long time, and when I went to see a eye doctor, one of the first things she asked me when checking my eyes was that if I've gotten any medication for the hypertension or if I've discussed it with my doctor.
I've always wondered what was complicating just getting a blood test, analyzing it and telling you every imaginable thing about your physical condition. Viruses, markers indicating bone damage, infection, stressed liver/kidneys, metastacizing cancers, there should be chemical indications of all these things in a few mls of blood, shouldn't there?
Is the complication that these markers don't exist in blood, or that we don't have the technology to pour some blood into a machine, thin it out onto a scanning surface, and have a computer automatically analyze every single piece of matter in the sample and tablulate the results (stupid question, I know)? Heck, proteins and the body's checmical signals might not even be visually identifiable.
It just seems like visually analyzing blood like that would be a medical-computing holy grail.
But then again, we can't even get optical character recognition working, let alone optical 10^9-different-chemicals recognition.
Don't Hate, Gestate
Does anybody have a good technique to take a picture of your own retina? What kind of setup would you need?
(||) Nehmo (||)
I'm worried.
This is basically iridology - which is an "alternative" therapy. It sounds like the same doctors who were saying that iridology was "nonsense" are now putting a new twist on it, calling it 'new science', and calling it their own - and respectable!
I'm a first year med student and this is common knowledge. What is new here?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... If you're driving, don't stare at beauties on the road. If there is beauty in a drivers eye, he might suffer from daim bramage or something.
Abnormalities in the blood vessels of the eye caused by hypertension and diabetes are kind of common knowledge. Often people with hypertension have broken blood vessels in the eye. I am kind of surprised that they can diagnose heart disease from the blood vessels, though. It's amazing how everything in the body is interconnected in some way.
This is text book Chinese medicine. Looking for signs of these things in the face and eyes has a history of about 1500 to 2000 years. I guess it is good that Western medicine has finally come around, but this is far from amazing.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
Knowing a few things about medicine, I'd rather think the retina reflects damage that is already present instead of predicting anything, and this is NOT new. When you have diabetes you'd have a control of your retina regularly to check for complications (known as diabetic retinopathy), when hypertension lasts for a long time (chronic hypertension) the retinal vessels undergo some changes that are representative for changes elsewhere in the body. And finally, hypertension, diabetes, along with hyperlipidemia, smoking and familial predisposition are all risk factors for cardiovascular diseases (heart infarct and cerebrovascular accidents).
In conclusion: nothing new, nothing innovative.
Iridology is the belief that a persons health can be determined by the color patterns in their iris. This article is about determining a persons cardiovascular health by examining the blood vessels in the retina.
Only endorsed by science.
Side point: if iridology was true then if you developed a nasty disease but were asymptomatic then what would an iris scanner used as a biometric security system do? Would you find out that you have cancer AND they won't let you access your bank account in one day? That would not be a fun day.
Is this the sort of thing that could be integrated with biometric retinal scanners? Now that *would* be a use of biometrics I could agree with. Walk up to your office/workshop/underground lair, get your iris scanned, and " Good afternoon, Gordonjcp. Incidentally you might want to get that cholesterol level looked at."
Just a thought...
The best way to keep your cholestorol low is to go vegan and of course be a healthy vegan. My cholestorol is 146. I am not even close to at risk for any of the well-understood health issue. Better yet, in addition to going vegan, go raw and get really healthy.
My regular doctor for the last 8 years or so has training in analysing the retina (oriental practices, she also does acupunture). Besides (and before) the usual medicine, she always performs a visual exam that lasts from 5 to 10 minutes, comparing the retina on both eyes to a couple eye-charts. She usually detects signs of problems that way, and then proceeds to treating them with a combination of either standard or homeopatic pharmaceuticals.
:)
This article seems to support the idea that there is scientific a basis for that oriental venue of medicine afterall. Thounsands of years of empiric knowledge being proven by science?
"I don't mind God, it's his fan club I can't stand!" E8
I heard that you could do the same thing (and more) with the bumps on your head.
Well, checking the ears won't identify "the runs" (diarrhea), but I routinely check patients' ears if they give a history of cough, headache, pink eye, or other head/neck symptoms. This is to help identify nasal congestion, a common cause of head/neck problems. Fluid (normally) produced in the sinuses, middle ear (behind the eardrum, so it can't come out through the eardrum), and eyes (excessive amounts would be called "tears") all normally drain into nasal cavity. If your nose is plugged, then you'd get sinus fluid buildup causing sinus headache, ear fluid buildup causing plugged and sore ears, and failure to adequately lubricate the eyes causing irritation and possibly infection. Furthermore, if your nasal mucus is running down the back of your throat, the "post-nasal drip" can cause a cough that won't go away with cough medicine. But try a decongestant, and the cough medicines will magically start working.
When I look in the ears, I can see whether there is fluid behind the eardrum, and tympanic bulging, which tells me that the eustachian tube (and therefore the nose) is plugged. If it is, then I can predict that the patient will probably have the sinus/eye/cough symptoms mentioned above. So the conversation would be more like:
P: I've got a cough and a headache.
D: Let me look in your ears. Yup, you've got a cough and headache.
By the way, about half my patients don't believe me when I tell them about their nasal congestion, because there's no mucus running out the nostrils, and their nose is unplugged enough so that they can breathe ok. Doesn't mean the eustachian tube's not blocked.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Very good point: the eye, being transparent (in parts), is the one place where you get to see nerves and blood vessels directly, without cutting anything open. You can tell whether there is increased pressure in the brain (the blind spot will have ill-defined borders), and you can actually see whether there is cholesterol coating the blood vessels, or damage from high blood pressure or diabetes. You can even see arterial pulsations, if you look for them. This is a pretty routine exam I do when I see patients.
All this is from a $80 ophthalmoscope that you can fit into your pocket. As other posters have pointed out, this is pretty much old news.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
If you want to look for arterial disease, then looking at arteries is a good idea. The ones in the retina are the easiest to see. All med students are trained in ophthalmoscopy, and will be able to detect retinal changes associated with long term diease. The studies use computers to scan digital photographs to actually measure arterial diameters and other predictive signs. The studies are based on these photographs. Using this quantitative approach is fairly new, and the long term study results are just coming in. It's not the same thing as your doctor detecting the obvious changes with an ophthalmoscope, chinese medicine or a palmistry-alike.
This is also known as 'Iridology' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridology ) and has been discounted as something that lacks any reproducible scientific basis.
Just because its 'Chinese' and 'Not Western' does NOT give it basis in fact.
As someone whose mother was scammed by these bastards I fully support their burning at the stake.
we can reduce health costs, even for unisured by using the same biometric ID sensor [retina scan IS in use already] but fork the data stream to the medical analyser software along with the ID processing.
By the time you exit the ID station, an annucniator can tell you your fate as accurately as a doctor or a fortuneteller:
Robotic Male Voice: "Good morning Abdulla Massoud You are on our no-fly list because we suspect you want to blow yourself up and take a few others with you." followed immediately by
Robotic Femle Voice:" You will find Dr Jones in the examining room on the left. You have an 85% chance of a fatal aneurism in the next two months and should be seen immediately."
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
For the past couple of years my eye doctor has used a device called "Optomap" (http://www.optomap.com/) to capture a digital image of my retina. The first time he used it he identified that I had hypertension, which I had been diagnosed with a number of years before, and can even track it's progress. Had this device been in use before I was diagnosed my hypertension might have been caught earlier.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
Quackwatch
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
... and a long time lurker, now turned anonymous coward :)
Anyways, as many others have noted, this concept is really not new at all. The fact that examining the retina can clue us in to systemic disease has been around for over 100 years. The novelty here, I believe, is that the researchers have prospectively (I'm guessing from the context of the article) examined digital fundus photographs, and found that they can be used predictively in determining the risk of diabetes/hypertension etc... (essentially, diseases that preferentially affect the small vessels in the body). But even this doesn't seem that novel, I can personally recall reading an article about 5 years ago which specifically looked at examining digital photographs to screen for diabetic retinopathy.
The other interesting part of the article has to do with their work on setting up a web-based digital review center. While the idea sounds great, this type of telemedicine runs into a lot of logistical problems, a sample of which would include:
-Limited sensitivity - ocular manifestations of systemic disease are not always present, and certainly are often NOT present early in the disease course. If we give high-risk individuals a "false negative" reading, are we really enhancing their overall health?
-Medical liability - who would be reading these? A trained physician? Licensed where? I am trained in the US, and fully licensed to practice, yet I can't even cross a state border and perform an exam without breaking the law.
-How are the digital images supposed to be obtained? Digital funduscopic cameras are pretty expensive.
-Practicality -- let's see, I could either buy a digital imaging system, and submit a photo to a website for review, or I could just check this patient's blood pressure, in the office (or check a blood sugar, or cholesterol level, etc...). These tests are actually much more definitive (we check patient's blood pressures in the office, before a retinal exam!), than an eye exam.
Ideally, what would probably be more effective would be something like a software package that can automatically analyze these images (with the proper legal disclaimers, of course), bundled with a portable digital imaging system. These would be wonderful for something like large scale screenings of under-served, high-risk populations -- an indian reservation, for instance. Then, you could identify especially high risk individuals, and recommend follow-up with either an ophthalmologist or internist. Though, really, everyone should probably at least have an occasional screening physical by a real doctor (ok, ok, enough soap-boxing).
Good grief. Sorry, you've pushed a button in me; I get this request from my patients all the frick'n time, so maybe if I answer this one, it will save a lot of doctors (and patients) some trouble.
Why don't we just do a "blood test that checks for everything"? The short answer that "there is no such test", but then my patient asks for a CT scan or MRI scan, or wonders when we will be technologically advanced enough so that we can invent such a test. It will never happen. Here's why:
Each test result is imperfect and must be interpreted in light of the clinical context. In other words, you have to know what you are looking for, or else you won't be able to tell what's normal or not normal. I view each test as being a somewhat inaccurate answer to a Yes/No question, e.g. "Is it Horrible Disease X?", but there is no test that tells you, "What disease is it?"
Just casting a net far and wide, looking for "everything", will net you all sorts of useless false positives that will waste time, cause worry, and worst of all, result in further unnecessary testing that may be risky.
There are two main reasons for this: test accuracy, and test relevance. Let me illustrate:
Elderly men everywhere are demanding to have their Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) blood levels checked, because it's not as embarrassing as having the doctor stick his finger up the bum to feel the prostate. Hey, you gotta check the PSA, because --what if you have cancer!!?? How can you be SURE that I don't have prostate cancer, doctor? (Answer: you probably do, and the prostate cancer will kill you in 135 years.) PSA testing is still controversial, and in fact the Canadian task force actually labeled PSA testing as harmful because then you need to surgically sample the prostate, leading to the risks associated with minor surgery.
How about that? A test that's actually harmful, hmm? You'd think you could just ignore the test result if that were the case, but nooo... now there's a medicolegal obligation to follow through with prostate biopsy.
On the other hand, if you carry a high risk for prostate cancer, then the PSA is a very useful test. If your father and his father and his father all had (clinically significant) prostate cancer, then I would definitely get you a PSA without you asking for it.
There's a mathematical basis behind this, so let me illustrate.
Suppose there's a Horrible Disease X that everyone is afraid of. Let's say it's HIV/AIDS, which some 1 million people have in the USA, but this applies to any other disease.
Suppose I have a test that is 99% sensitive; that is, if you really do have Disease X, then only 1% of the time will the test erroneously say that you are okay. The test is also 99% specific; that is, if you DON'T have X, then only 1% of the time will the test erroneously say that you do have it.
I need a volunteer from the USA population to try my Super Duper Get-Checked-In-Case-You-Have-X test. You there, with the Slashdot username "lifeisgreat", why don't we try it on you?
Horrors! The test is positive! Life is not great, after all! What's the chance that you have Disease X? What's the probability that my Super Duper test, with 99% accuracy, is wrong?
Think out your answer before reading on. You have just tested positive for one of those "every imaginable things" test that you were asking for. What will you do now? Call a doctor? Talk to family? Write a will? Will you ever live to have kids? Will you ever get frist psot on Slashdot again?
The answer: there is les
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
<sarcasm>But now it's patented and that makes it, well, better, you know.</sarcasm>
We used to try to 'predict' what number someone was thinking of by looking into their eyes and looking at the blood vessels. Quite funny back then, but this is a far more serious application. I'm a little curious as to exactly how this works, and the article is just a wee bit shy on that.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Ophthalmologists have known this for years, and are trained to detect these symptoms.
Man: "No, listen."
Woman: "No, no, I won't hear it."
Man: "Look into my eyes. I'm dying."
Woman: "No! It's diabetes, I can see it!"
This opens up a whole slew of new lines to use on the date you want to get out of!
"When I look into your eyes, I see Diabetes."
Currently "enjoying" the comedown from a good weekend, i can assure you. ITS PAIN.
alot of tweakers tend to either drop dead or go pschyo after being up for 7 days.
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
Can looking into a woman's eyes give an indication she wants to get laid?
I went to a terrific optometrist named Belinda in Washington State, Kennewick. She took images of my inner eye, and told me I was healthy, free of arterial problems, heart disease, and so forth just by looking at my images. She pinpointed where the genetic flaws were that caused my grandfather to go blind too.
There's nothing quite as surreal as looking into pictures of your own eye...
Don't Crease the Weasel!
Optometrists have been spotting early signs of diabetes, multiple sclerosis, cancer, hypertension, high cholesterol, stroke, heart disease, herpes simplex and thyroid problems for decades. Still, it's nice that this system allows for more precise quantification of the illness, and it's nice that it can be done without an optometrist on hand, but the fact that such things can be diagnosed by examining the retina is not news.
pornking
Since omega 3 fatty acids are a significant structural component of the retina, would a long term diet rich in omega 3 thwart such iridology tests?
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
As a CRT user, I think I'm in for it.
So much of medicine is plumbing and pipes. If pipes are clogged in one area of the body (the retinas), pipes are going to be clogged in another area (the heart, or the brain). This isn't a revolutionary concept.
What would be revolutionary is using image recognition algorithms to look for specific disease patterns in retinal vasculature. It is then a simple process of imaging the retinas and automate the image processing. That would give you a list of risk factors, and be able to direct additional screening exams. Here's the deal, how many opthamologists do you know who can code?
Cost per patient: $2
Billing per patient: $200
There you go, boys, a $20,000,000 start up idea for free.
You're welcome.
My father - now 81 years old was a physician and did retinal exams as part of every physical. He said it was a good way to get a peek at vascular health.
The eye has blood vessels in front of the retina that the brain has to interpolate out of the image - rather puts a wrench in the ID claim that the eye is an example of "intelligent" design - similar to having power supply wires in between the lens and sensor of a digital camera.
Good doctors also will take your blood pressure on both sides and use several other tricks to pick up early signs of heart disease. Sadly, many younger doctors don't do this and think modern imaging will catch everything. A good physical takes time - if you aren't prodded and looked at for 30-45 min you are getting a rush job.
We are not exactly dealing with The New England Journal of Medicine here. The first thing you see on the site is an invitation to visit the LiveScience store. It would appear that the purpose of this article is to sell something.
The arteries in the retina are the only arteries directly visible in the human body and physicians have been looking at them ever since von Helmolzvon Helmholtz invented the direct ophthalmoscope in 1851. This is the unit with which your doctor peers into your eye using one of his own. Unfortunately, due to the intractability of Snell's LawSnell's Law less than 10 degrees of retina can be seen. A good explanation of the exam is located here.here.. Should the doctor use both eyes with an indirect ophthalmoscope such as is used during retinal surgery considerably more retina can be seen but the image is aerial and cannot be photographed directly. Nevertheless a good retinal camera, taking multiple views which are then pieced together can provide a map of the retinal vessels. The gold standard for this sort of thing in diabetes was the Airlie House Classification developed in 1968.1968.. A modern study modern study might involve 7-field stereoscopic color photographs to get an accurate map. Accurate results cannot be produced with a single picture through an undilated pupil in an aging population suspected of disease. The way to diagnose hypertension is with a blood pressure cuff. The way to diagnose diabetes is with a blood test.
Which is why I've sometimes described the retina as "a piece of your brain that sticks out of your forehead" :)
As a dog breeder, I'm rather more accustomed to looking at retinas than the average non-medico, thanks to peering over the ACVO's shoulder during routine eye exams on my breeding stock (since there is hereditary blindness in dogs). An oddity I and my vet ophthalmologist have both noticed: in the Labrador Retrievers of 25 years ago, the typical tapetum in black or yellow specimens was a rich royal blue, or rarely, dark green. But over the past couple decades these colours disappeared, and now the typical tapetum is light green to yellowish (even when the pigment-restricting chocolate gene is not present). ???!!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
http://raffinorgangrind.textamerica.com/?r=4180027
This is an example of what you will see with a retinal exam as posted to TextAmerica raffinorgangrind. This was covered by my insurance, including the initial exam as refered by my primary care physician, then seen by my eye doctor, and further refered to a retinal specialist to determine if any further damanged to my vision had occurred. I will have six month followups, my diabetes is under control with oral meds, and I check my blood sugar every day. Think about the fact that it would be very hard to blog without my vision. Get your eyes examined by an eye care professional.
George
Please tell us what we can use to clear the tube.
from biotoxins in the environment. They are very common, especially in moldy homes and offices. Check out http://www.chronicneurotoxins.com/ and http://moldwarriors.com/
My optometrist examined me a couple years ago and asked if I had high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or great stress. I had just been checked by my medical physician and didn't have the first two. I'm a pretty serious runner. But my JOB--was off the charts, really stressful. The next year, same eye doc, same test. I had quit the job. He didn't mention any vascular problems. I asked him. He said no, don't see anything like that.