Slashdot Mirror
PARC Builds iPod-Sized HIV Detector
MikeChino writes "Right now it's difficult, if not impossible, to quickly detect HIV in patients living in impoverished countries. That may all change soon, though — researchers at a California outfit called the Palo Alto Research Center have built an iPod-sized handheld device that can provide an immune check-up in under 10 minutes — all with a prick of the finger. With millions of people around the world without access to a full-size laboratory, PARC's device could revolutionize the detection and treatment of HIV."
And not just for the extremely rural areas. It can be used in a doctors office here in the U.S. And that the device doesn't cost a small fortune means you'll see it in widespread adoption in the first world too.
iPod-sized? Really? Which one? nano, mini, classic, touch, ...
How about some real measurement, like a pack of cards or fractions of a VW Beetle?
There's an app for that?
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
Wait, I did WHAT?
Sorry, I've been waiting something like 10 years for this moment...
... who finds it funny that this portable HIV detection device uses a lance?
"Sir, first the good news: you were not HIV positive. Now, the bad: you are now."
I'm sure the lances would be disposable and all, but still.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
You never confirm with just one test that you have HIV. A first positive gives a reason to do a second, more thorough, test to determine if the infection is present. Also, if your T-cells are low enough to give a false positive, you probably want to find out why, as other conditions could be present.
False positives aren't as big an issue as false negatives. There's a reason why, if a person is thought to have been exposed to an HIV vector, they get multiple tests spaced out over the course of weeks or months; there is a gap between infection and lowered T-cell count. Mind you, this isn't really a new problem, or specific to the device from TFA. If the new detector is as reliable, or nearly as reliable, as current testing procedures, but cheap enough to be deployed widely in the third world, it is a very useful development.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
I thought iPods caused HIV.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Can you imagine what this would do for the STD worries of people involved in "One Night Stands"?
Won't help very much. You can't tell if you've got an STD a few hours after having sex.
I think the OP was more like "Look at me .. I'm STD free, you're STD free so lets fuck!"
However STD's such as HSV2 are hard to detect at the best of times, so I doubt it would a 100% guarantee
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
This is not an HIV detector, it's a CD4 T-cell counter. If the count is below 250, it is assumed there is an immune system problem which in poor countries is likely caused by HIV. There is already a cheap test for HIV, using a mouth swab.
Holy crap. Really? Do you actually think that someone would use a device to test for HIV without switching the needles? Or, for that matter, would use ANY medical device without switching the needles? We're talking about medical professionals here, not heroin addicts.
It should be clarified that what PARC is announcing is a small flow cytometer used to count T-cells that express the CD4 antigen, a particular subset of T-cells that is most affected by HIV. A dropping concentration of these cells in HIV+ patients' blood is a reasonable metric for the progression of AIDS. It should also be noted that the system PARC demonstrated is not a full-fledged CD4+ T-cell counter, because you also need to measure CD3 expression to tell apart CD4+ T-cells and other white cells that express CD4, like monocytes. Traditional flow cytometers do this by using two antibodies (CD3 and CD4) labelled with different colored fluorescent dyes and measuring the intensity of each color channel using a photomultiplier tube or avalanche photodiode (these are very weak signals!). The PARC prototype is a proof-of-concept that only measures CD4 expression so would very often overestimate the true concentration of CD4+ T-cells in blood.
The interesting thing here is that they've apparently been able to do away with PMTs and APDs as detectors using a method called spatially modulated fluorescence emission. Typically a very narrowly focused laser beam (a few microns or thinner) is used to excite the fluorescent label, so you get precious few photons out of it to detect (hence the need for high-gain detectors like PMTs and APDs). The idea here is to stretch out the excitation region and use a slit pattern to help in background subtraction since you can predict the locations (in time) of the fluorescence signal as it passes by the slits allowing for integration of that signal over a longer period of time with lower background than you would otherwise be able to with a standard photodiode. This also lets you mitigate the loss of bandwidth you'd get by stretching out your detection region since you can figure out which tiny spikes in signal from the photodiode go together based on the known pattern of spacings in the slit and the timings of the peaks.
Very clever! Definitely a lot more interesting than all the cytometer-on-chip microfluidics stuff that's been thrown around since the 80's to no notable success.
Portable tests are not necessarily what is necessary to make infectious disease detection accessible to the 3rd-world. The main factor is cost, and that is usually addressed with speed and volume. Ex: A molecular diagnostic device could run a 96-well plate of patient samples in about an hour. That's 96 patients per hour as compared with... 6 patients per hour with this device. Now, depending on what this thing costs it might make-up for it, but I highly doubt it.
The only problem with this is that only after the disease has matured in the host and taken time to have a noticeable detrimental affect on the immune system, it's a little late in the game. The virus itself can spend months or even years without bringing the immune system down that low. The entire time, the infected host would be able to spread the disease, all while assuming they were 'clean' if they are not properly educated about the exact metric this test uses.
Although this test might serve a simple function of finding people who have almost moved into full blow A.I.D.S, it does not do enough to detect the disease early enough and it does not remove the need for better testing. At most, it's just a general catch all for the very obvious cases (obvious by immune system function). If anything, this would give a false sense of security.
A California outfit? Holy understatement! They invented the mouse and the desktop metaphor! They've been inventing ground-breaking stuff since the sixties!
did you know right now in the USA liver failure is the leading cause of AIDS death?
Even if that were true, it could easily be astounding evidence of the effectiveness of the AIDS drug cocktail.
(i.e. The patients are living long enough to die to something such as liver failure rather than immunodeficiency-related conditions)
>> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
...except for the fanbois and the advertisers who conveniently snuck that $brandName in there.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Health insurance is not mandatory in most places in the world. Where as car insurance is mandatory in most places in the world. So your car vs health comparison is flawed.
Instant tests would enable the Insurance companies to charge the sick HUGE fees or even reject them all together.
The insurance industry has and continues charge different rates based on genetic history. A classic example of discrimination is this question: "Is there a history of XYZ in your family?".
With instant disease tests as well as genetic biasing you are handing the insurance industry a blank check.
As for Drain on the system? Which system do you speak of? If the insurance industry were bias then less people would be sick? Because that what it sounds like you just said.
So yes the healthy need to help pay for the sick. Quit being so selfish.
So in point form:
Health insurance should be mandatory. ( level of is debatable. )
Cost or even access to health insurance can not be biased by genetic or existing condition. ( AKA the insurance company can not alter fees based on who your are or how healthy you are. )
Its actually kind of true, but for the wrong reason. One of the leading causes of death in AIDS patients is chronic viral hepatitis which destroys the liver. About 80% of cases of liver failure in AIDS patients can be directly attributable to viral hepatitis, although liver disease only accounts for 14% of the total mortality in AIDS patients. Even death due to cardiovascular disease (9% of total mortality in HIV+ patients) have been seen to correlate significantly with CD4+ T-cell count. That's not to say that there is no ART toxicity, but it still improves the survivability of the infection and increases the life expectancy of patients.
/.er that feels that all "mainstream" scientists are hacks. Kind of amused he got modded interesting...
That being said, I'm pretty sure you're not going to be able to convince the