Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Develop Compact Breathalyzer That Detects the Flu (digitaltrends.com)
Researchers at the University of Texas at Arlington have created a prototype breathalyzer-style device capable of detecting the influenza virus in its early stages -- before you start to show symptoms. "What I have created -- together with my research team and research collaborators working on this project -- is a single exhale, portable, handheld, potentially wireless, battery-operated, inexpensive, breathalyzer that relies on gas-selective sensing elements, and which detects the presence and monitors the concentration of biomarkers in breath that signal a disease," Perena Gouma, a professor in the university's Materials Science and Engineering Department, told Digital Trends. From the report: The specific biomarkers the breathalyzer looks for include traces of nitric oxide and ammonia, both of which can be measured using smart sensors. "This particular breathalyzer detects flu virus infection," she continued. "This is expected to be a personalized diagnostics tool available over the counter and it will allow the individuals to monitor their health, with the option of sharing the data obtained with their physician in real time." Gouma has previously developed other breathalyzers, for everything from asthma detection and diabetes monitoring to determining an endpoint for hemodialysis, the process of filtering waste products from the blood. The neat thing about breathalyzers, Gouma said, is that the technology involved can be easily modified to detect different diseases simply by changing the sensors. In this example, for instance, it could be upgraded to instead test for Ebola. As for when this technology may be available, Gouma said the team needs to carry out clinical trials, "but we are already exploring our options for commercializing this tool."
Until they have a peer reviewed article, this is just vaporware almost identical to the product claimed by failed Theranos.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Could help reduce unnecessary use of antibiotics
Does this mean that employers will be able to breathalyse employees to detect those who say they've had the flu but are chucking a sickie?
The main problem with antibiotics is not careless human use, its the often just precautionary antibiotics that's being applied to livestock. This is the biggest place where antibiotics are applied. To make it worse, they are also often applied in too low doses. This provides a breeding ground for resistant bacteria. I'm no vegetarian or anything, but I think this is definitely wrong.
Why would I test for flu if I have no symptoms? Does he expect me to just test every morning when I get up from bed? Seems a waste, since I haven't had flu for around 40 years.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Using gas from exhaled breath to detect disease is a whole medical field that the people running this study are evidently unaware of (none of them have a medical background). If diagnosing influenza was as easy as detecting nitric oxide and ammonia in breath, we would already have this. The problem is that almost anything wrong with you causes you to exhale nitric oxide and ammonia. The real state of the art in this field looks at dozens of markers simultaneously to correct for common background effects (i.e. air pollution, your metabolism, what you had for lunch...). Handheld detectors for this stuff are all over the place.
There's a wikipedia article for "Exhaled Nitric Oxide" that goes over some of these things. This study was funded by NSF? Why? If you can Google your research question and find the answer dozens of times over, you don't need to waste some poor grad student's time for 2-3 years to get the answer yet again.
If this works as advertised, even with a confidence of 90%, I can see it quickly becoming a mandatory test before boarding an airplane worldwide, which is how the flu spreads around the world every year. Sure it might inconvenience a few people who are just carriers without much in the way of symptoms, but the flu kills around 500,000 annually. If we could use this tool to keep it from hopping continents as rapidly, we would likely see flu vaccines become much more effective, as they would have more time to prepare and the disease mutation rate would be reduced.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
We've known what causes people to get sick (germs)
(...which is a gross over simplification. disease are caused by entirely different types of bugd: viruses, bacteria, funghi, protozoa, microscopic animals like worms, etc.)
for over a hundred years now. But it's amazing how many people still put their faith in things like health food diets.
Well, eating properly cooked food and drinking clean water can be proven to reduce some diseases
With proper detection and quarantine the flu could be eliminated from the human population almost entirely.
fat chance.
some diseases which are 100% human-targeting have indeed been eliminated (and you need to add vaccine on the list of things used against them).
but influenza affects tons of other animals (e.g: pigs) of which some are wild (e.g.: birds). And its going to be nearly impossible to control the spread of viral infections among (wild) migrating birds.
you can give specific anti virals to cases of Influenza detected early enough, you can quarantine to diminish transmission when sick (i.e. staying at home when sick.) but you can still have transmitted before starting to feel the symptoms), you can vaccinate to slow down its spread (hoping that the correct sub-type was predicted).
but you can't easily prevent animals carrying the influenza to pass it to human.
(well, in practice it's a tiny bit more complicated than just "passing". the different strains need to hybridize. but you got the general idea).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Does he expect me to just test every morning when I get up from bed?
not every morning, and not everyone.
but if the technology can become cheap enough, some at risk situations could be monitored (non vaccined people, who are in contact with lots of others, when there's an active outbreak around).
and there's an immense benefits in detecting early:
- have the currently not yet symptomatic sick stay at home to avoid spreading it further (with most viruses, including influenza, you could be transmitting before you start feeling symptoms).
- treat it with specific anti-virals (for influenza: the sooner you start, the better the chances of it being effective. starting more than 48h after the onset of symptoms won't make much a difference - you'll still be dick. being able to begin therapy before even the symptoms starts will surely reduce the impact of the flu)
thus, if such a tchnology works, you could replace "laying in bed for 1 week" by "working from home for a couple of days" (a lot better quality of time)
and from an employer's perspective, it means that 1 sick guy wont contaminate your whole company (a lot less lost days)
(of course, for that you need a technology that is precise enough. i somewhat feel that if the analysis is limited to few gazes mentioned, it might tire of too many false alerts).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
It's much cheaper than such a device, which just tells you that you have the flu, a viral disease that cannot be cured, only immunization helps.
I get flu shots every year as well... but your statement is somewhat inaccurate. Most circulating flu viruses are susceptible to antiviral medications. It's one of the things the CDC is constantly testing for, actually.
However I agree that immunization is the best option.
#DeleteChrome
I don't think I've ever had the flu. I've been told that if you are unsure if you've ever had it, you probably haven't.