Slashdot Mirror
A New "Medical Lab On a Chip" For Every Home?
destinyland writes "NWU professor Chad Mirkin discusses his company's new 'lab-on-a-chip' technology — the ability to automatically treat a blood sample with chemicals on a microchip, quickly detecting markers for diseases and other anomalies. The quick 'bio-barcode' test creates the possibility of a medical diagnostic system in every home, since it offers greater sensitivity than current tests with simpler instruments and at lower costs. This is not a futuristic technology; four tests already have received FDA clearances, so 'They're here.... It's in hospitals around the country. Really, what we are waiting for is just an increasing menu [of tests]... It will scale rapidly.'"
Reader Trintech sent word of a similar chip developed by Fraunhofer reseachers, writing, "The core element of this new chip is a disposable cartridge made of plastic which can be fitted with various types of sensors. To perform an assay, the doctor only has to place the relevant substances (reagents, etc.) into the cartridge and the test then takes place automatically. It is the researchers' hope that, by using this chip, medical patients will be able to get their lab results in a matter of minutes instead of days."
By waving this battery shaped object randomly around a person while is makes a soothing whirring noise your bluetooth enabled phone can give instant readings raging from various forms of neural degradation, radiation poisoning, and space parasite infections.
//Tricorder not as far away as we think.
Whole genome sequencing is only $12,500.00 today, down from $300M a decade ago, and $200K two years ago. In a few more years, the price will be down below $1000.00. The price is falling exponentially. In a decade or so each person will have their own personal genome sequenced routinely for $100.00. They'll be able to search for any virus or allele they want using their home computer on their own genomic data.
That would necessitate them actually being aware of any issue.
After community moderation got introduced, Taco realized that once story submission was democratized too, Slashdot could basically run unattended. There hasn't been anyone in the office since the Firehose went live.
Keep your fingers crossed Taco finds new interest in WoW because he left his login at the office.
I think this sort of technology is going to be as useful as Internet self-diagnosis. Most people have multiple "markers for disease" that aren't indicative of real disease or are of non-clinical forms. Bayesian probability* tells us that doing wide screen testing like this will just lead to lots of false positives and unnecessary medical procedures ('cause if the doctor does nothing and it isn't a false positive they will get sued). Some doctor's argue that screening for PSA (prostate specific antigen) causes more Years of Life Lost to unnecessary prostate removals than is saved by catching some cancers early.
Unfortunately the general public is not getting the reality that medicine is not a magic bullet that can detect and cure all disease with 100% accuracy. And counter-intuitively to decrease statistics like Years lost to Disability or Illness we might have to test less.
*(http://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffiles/30002.6.shtml)
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
You think they're going to stand around while technology replaces them?
april fools!!
In soviet Russia, God creates you!
There is a related technology that shows great promise for rural medicine, especially in poor and remote places. The concept is based around a small, chemically-treated piece of paper (okay, not technically just a piece of paper, but it helps to visualize it that way) about the size of a postage stamp. A small sample of urine or blood (depending on the type of test) is placed on a receptor point and the blood is sucked across traces to several pads with special chemicals. These chemicals act as basic tests. For example, two urine tests could be for glucose levels and protein levels. The pads will change colors across a spectrum, giving a range of possible readings for each test. The pad can then be photographed with, say, a cellphone with a higher-resolution camera, then that picture can be sent to a computer elsewhere for analysis. The tests themselves are ridiculously cheap compared to typical 1st-world lab tests.
http://www.ted.com/talks/george_whitesides_a_lab_the_size_of_a_postage_stamp.html
(((dB)))
I suspect the title is nuts, and I did rtfa. I hear the way things are set up in the usa, it is impossible to get medical lab work done without kind of a doctor's scrip. I give this some credence by reflecting on attempts to commercialize easily available HIV tests, as for instance, in taverns. On the other hand, there are home preggo testing kits. maybe someone can sort this out?
Except they just rewrote how pre-existing conditions are handled. If I knew how I'd mark you as a troll.
Why would you rather see people go to labs to get tests done the old way when "patients will be able to get their lab results in a matter of minutes instead of days." The "expensive single-use" cartridges are made of plastic and can be fitted with multiple sensors, making them inexpensive and while perhaps usable only once they perform a battery of tests and in a fraction of the time. This is rad.
Well hopefully the technology will have progressed to the point that we'll have nanobots in our bloodstream testing the waters for infections and whatnot then reporting to our home computers.
What is the point of FDA clearances if not to review the test to make sure that the accuracy rate is within standards?
I'd buy a toilet with an upgradeable lab chipset that analyzed my health every time I used it. So long as I owned and completely controlled its data, sharing it with medical professionals sueable for privacy violations.
The millennia of humans only wondering "what's that smell?" without really knowing should come to a close in our lifetimes.
--
make install -not war
Wake me up when this 'widget' can do a CD4 Blood test.
I'm sure that many Leukaemia sufferers will say the same. Having to go to the Hospital rather than the Doctor's Surgery for a CD4 test is a real PITA.
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
By the time you're going to a doctor you may as well get the sample drawn in the doctor's office or a lab. Until you can perform "over the counter" tests with it, it's useless in the home.
But then, as an American, something like this might be the closest thing to health care I ever get.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
This guy isn't talking about anything new.
The concept of a 'lab on a chip' has been around since at least the early 90's. I know from talking with my my boss that in the 70's, chemists at MIT were expecting tricorder devices to be implemented sometime in the late 80's.
We see some progress in this field, but the ultimate goal of a tricorder device is a long way off. Home pregnancy tests provide a similar functionality, however purpose built for one assay.
With careful planing, an assay can be marketed for use by consumers, but I'm leery of talk of talk about 'one device to rule them all' when it comes to this sort of analysis.
The key is that this sort of analysis is not as simple as throwing a sample through a mass spectrometer and identifying the compounds like Sean Connery in Medicine Man.
Bioanalytical chemistry (which is what this is) is not magic. Physical or chemical information has to be obtained, and this is generally requires the use of reagents such as labeled (with something we can use to detect them, such as radioactive tritium, or a fluorescent compound) antibodies and antigens. I just don't see these sorts of things being sold to consumers in anything but a black box form, where the consumer does not interact with the reagents in a meaningful way. Sort of like how pregnancy tests are done.
This truth implies that each analysis will have its own one shot kit, providing a qualitative assessment of whatever is under investigation. Sure some of the hardware can be externalized, such as a simple fluorescence spectroscopy instrument, but still, cartridges for whatever test will still need to be purchased. Unless this guy has come up with some incredibly radical--and earthshattering analysis techniques, I've got to say he has either been misquoted by the reporter, or he is blowing PR smoke.
Funny coincidence is that I am writing up a research proposal for one of my grad classes with the goal of quantifying Early Prostate Cancer Antigen 2 (EPCA-2) in serum using a microfluidic device using forster resonance energy transfer (FRET) as a detection method. I can see a device commercialized for this purpose, but it would be one shot and limited to this analysis.
the possibility of a medical diagnostic system in every home
Er no. You realize we doctors don't go to school for 4 or 5 years (and more for specialization) just to gouge people out of their hard earned money, right? While "cheaper" and "more portable" equipment makes it a lot easier to screen a population - the actual DIAGNOSIS can only be made by a physician. Not only do you need to have to be able to read what the machine is telling you - you have to understand why it's telling you what it is, and when not to believe it. You have to assess the whole patient, not just a set of lab results.
Hurray for the technology. Now how many people will die because of it when they decide they don't need their doctors anymore?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
It's interesting that the two highest voted comments here both assume that this is looking at the patient's DNA, whereas the article seems (to me) to be saying that it's looking for the DNA of specific diseases - in order to tell you if you have them.
So next time you're feeling under the weather you can put a few drops of blood into the device and it'll tell you whether you have a cold or smallpox, without you having to trek to the Doctor and possibly waste both time and money.
My Journal
A diagnostic assay would be a solution over and above the current solutions proposed. For example, according to Nature Medicine 16, 348 (2010) the law is responsible the success of counterfeit drugs? Why the law is poor Nature Medicine proposes that the reporting of counterfeit drugs is not mandatory and therefore is underreported. This may be true for the USA where pharmaceuticals are bought online, which is a major distribution source of counterfeit drugs; however, in countries like Australia, this is not a major source of counterfeit drugs. But where is the problem most endemic? In countries such as India, it is a huge problem since the recipients of counterfeit drugs cannot generally buy legitimate drugs through legitimate means. In my mind, the first question arises is how does one know that a drug is counterfeit and therefore know to report? This is the first step. The problem with counterfeit drugs is that they do not contain the pharmaceutical required for its action, or may contain a poison. More laws do not remove the problem There are many laws already available to stop the sale of counterfeit drugs; however, we are not seeing these laws being used. Why? The main problem is detection. How is an individual or even a practitioner to know if a drug is not working? Is it because of the patient’s own response, the profile of the drug (many drugs are not 100% effective in all patients at all times) or because a drug is counterfeit? Increasing the policing of counterfeit drugs by putting a mandatory obligation onto reporting of counterfeit drugs will not address the above problems. This really in turn is making a recipient of a counterfeit drug a criminal if they do not report it. Further increasing policing of reporting has a huge cost with little return. Use reward, not the stick! I believe that increased reporting is necessary, but not by imposing penalties. A reward for reporting counterfeits would have a much more positive outcome for all concerned. This will help stop counterfeit drug trafficking, because it: 1. will not cause criminalisation the innocent recipients, thus further expanding the black market; and 2. will help the recipients of counterfeit drugs, who are the most vulnerable due, afford the legitimate channels for legitimate drugs. Further, industry should support the development of readily available objective tools for proper screening of drugs to allow recipients to determine the legitimacy of drugs they have received, thereby facilitating the reporting of counterfeits. http://www.1place.com.au/wptest.php
... as the simple plastic strips used by diabetics to monitor their blood glucose levels daily runs about a dollar per strip, and provides only an accuracy of roughly plus-or-minus 20%. And that's using a meter that they give away, the profits are so great on the plastic strips.
Given that the machinery to process this "disposable plastic cartridge" is going to be fairly costly, the per-use charge seems likely to be expensive enough to preclude use of this as a coarse diagnostic filter, which would seem to be its greatest usefulness.