Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Swiping Out Cancer 128

Posted by michael from the he's-dead-jim dept.
mhackarbie writes "Just read this article over on Wired about a cheap hand scanner which might be able to spot cancer tumors. It took only few seconds of reflection before I decided this could be the killer biotech app which is needed for the dot-bio boom everyone keeps predicting someday." We've mentioned this gizmo before.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Swiping Out Cancer More

Swiping Out Cancer

Comments Filter:

  • Can you say... (Score:5, Funny)

    by craenor ( 623901 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @07:23AM (#6381921) Homepage
    Tricorder? ...I knew you could.

  • imagine (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    30 something MILF's flocking to bestbuy to try these on their boobies.... orr.. imagine.. a young man with a mullet getting caught with one of thse scanners inside his pants... oh the possibilities

  • What... (Score:2, Funny)

    by dysprosia ( 661648 )
    no flatbed cancer-scanners? I'm sure there'll be a market for them! ;)

  • This is not biotech (Score:2, Informative)

    by stm2 ( 141831 )
    It won't be a biotech "killer app" since biotech companies are working on genomic and proteomic application. By definition, biotech involves altering DNA on organism (usually bacteria) and selling a protein or procedure derivated from it.
    This device seems promising, but can't be called biotechnology.

    • Re:This is not biotech (Score:5, Informative)

      by robslimo ( 587196 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @07:31AM (#6381950) Homepage Journal
      Bullpuckey.

      Bio, a prefix meaning life/living organisms
      tech, short for technology.

      OK, we've got a handheld scanner that can be used to enhance/lengthen/improve a persons life. Seems like an application of techology to life/living organisms.

      Biotech it is.

      • Re:This is not biotech (Score:2, Informative)

        by stm2 ( 141831 )
        Hello Rob,

        I understand what you mean with bio=live tech=technology, so this would we biotech. But according to most biotech official definition, biotech is another thing.
        Look here:
        According to dupont (a industry leader)
        "is the application of scientific knowledge to transfer beneficial genetic traits from one species to another to enhance or protect an organism"
        According to the Biotechnology Industry Association:
        "The use of biological processes to solve problems or make useful products."
        This last is more br

        • Misinformation. (Score:5, Informative)

          by Marc2k ( 221814 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @08:28AM (#6382156) Homepage Journal
          You're only making things worse. You misquoted (perhaps intentionally) to further your definition in hopes that no one would find the Dupont site. The actual line you're quoting, sans elipsis, states, "Transgenics (often referred to as biotechnology) is the application of scientific knowledge to transfer beneficial genetic traits from one species to another to enhance or protect an organism."

          They are clearly talking about the field of transgenics, which is what you called 'biotechnology', they were merely stating that it is often called biotechnology, but with the implication that biotech refers to a much larger spectrum.

          Even further, if you would have followed the link to the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO)'s glossary, you would have found that they describe biotechnology as, "Biotechnology - [bio.org]
          The use of biological processes to solve problems or make useful products." under which the product in question would surely fall.
          • This is the correct definition I have encountered as well. I think the general public has labled biotech from the former definition although it is not accepted by the professionals in the feild, it seems to work for 99% of everyone else. On a side note, I'm sure it doesn't take much pointing out that this article was very poorly written... Just what is a "killer biotech app" anyway!?
            • Just what is a "killer biotech app" anyway!?

              Hmmm. Let's take 'killer' in its original sense, mix in some bio-tech...

              I don't think I want to be anywhere nearby when the next 'killer biotech' product is released

          • I did cut out the first parte because I thought it was confusing. If you like the Biotechnology Industry Organization definition, the tumor handheld scanner still is NOT biotech. Why? Because the product doesn't use a bio process to work. It is just an electronic device, it just process a kind of biological signal (honestly I don't know wich signal). It is like an computerized axial tomography (CAT), but smaller and specialized on a special function. For you and most /. reader, tomography devices are biotec
            • "For you and most /. reader" Hey, thanks for the petty classification.

              Regardless, it all comes down to how you view 'use a bio process to work'. As I'm sure you've read, the instrument relies on the disordered state of cancerous cells, which resonate to a certain frequency. Is that using a 'bio process to work'? Debatable, but I'd say so. You also seem to be missing the point of their definition, which not only describes exactly the type of products which you described, but also products which work the oth
              • I'm just curious why you are arguing a point on something you seem to have little knowledge about. Is a stethoscope also biotechnology? Is all medical equipment biotechnology? Read up some, my friend.
                • Hah. Alright, I concede. I do still heartily disagree with the original poster that his definition of biotechnology is flawed in its scope. Is the actual object in question biotechnology? No, in truth, you're both right on that count. However, you must concur that simply because a product does not alter the biological state of a being does not preclude it from being 'biotechnology'. That was the point which I felt was more solid, but it is quite moot and far off from the original point of 'is this biotech?'
          • my question:

            Why are you wasting your time correcting a person who uses the phrase "more broader?"

    • For someone so hung up on the meaning of words... Just what does "derivated" mean?

      TROLL

  • I'm sure it will do wonders for.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 3.5 stripes ( 578410 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @07:24AM (#6381929)
    Insurance companies as well.

    Go to your job interview, pee in this cup, swipe this in your mouth.

    In one simple step eliminate drug users, and possible insurance deadweights... Joy!

    • Re:I'm sure it will do wonders for.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by xtal ( 49134 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @07:43AM (#6381988)



      Insurance companies as well.

      Go to your job interview, pee in this cup, swipe this in your mouth.

      In one simple step eliminate drug users, and possible insurance deadweights... Joy!

      Those who subject to drug tests have nobody to blame but themselves for their proliferation to other industries like insurance. If nobody submits to a test, or a signifigant fraction of the exceptional workers refuse, a competitive advantage exists for those companies who do not test.

      The process of pre-employment drug testing is rare (and, I think, illegal) in Canada, and our country has not fallen apart as a result. I have no information to assume there is any difference in levels of drug addiction between Canada and the USA.

      Drug testing is easily remedied outside the courts if it truely bothers you. It seems most people are content to piss in a cup for a job. To each their own.

      • [OffTopic]
        You should read the latest Eric Schlosser book, "Refeer Madness: Sex Drugs and Cheap Labour" [amazon.com]. He mentions differences between Canada drug strategies and USA ones, at least regarding marijunana.
        [/OffTopic]

      • Re:I'm sure it will do wonders for.. (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Not necessarily illegal, maybe it depends on who you are. I had an inteview with CSIS (canadian CIA) once. One of the first 5 questions they asked me was wheter or not I had done any illegal drugs in the past year. I don't think they would have done any tests per say, but part of the recruiting process included a polygraph, which they would have probably asked the same question, and discovered if I had been lying. It's amazing, here i was interviewing for a job with computers, and they weren't concerned
      • Good luck finding a new contract in this economy by refusing to submit to a drug test.
      • Look up the economics term "externality." Whether you do or do not submit to a drug test does not directly have an impact on whether companies test--it only directly affects whether you get the job or not. Yes if enough other people refuse at some point companies would stop doing it but each individual has to make the decision for themselves first & others second. It's easy to be flippant about this but in an terrible job market, if the question is whether to pee in a cup & feed one's family or p
        • It's easy to be flippant about this but in an terrible job market, if the question is whether to pee in a cup & feed one's family or protest on principle and go hungry the decision is pretty obvious

          Everyones principles have a price. My point is that if privacy and principles mattered, the problem would be self-solving.
    • ...in Australia involve a drunk driver. Bear in mind that roughly 8-fold as many people are maimed for life in road accidents as are killed outright.

      If scanning is what it takes to ensure that my food, medicine etc (airliner's wing spars, name it) are not made by people who are (1) stoned; and/or (2) stupid/wilful enough to delibrately impair themselves for kicks, then so be it.

  • Erm (Score:5, Funny)

    by TCM ( 130219 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @07:27AM (#6381931)
    Is it just me or does anyone else find using the words killer biotech app a bit.. unlucky? Keep that thing away from me!

  • The key is if it's better than current detection (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alkarismi ( 48631 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @07:28AM (#6381934) Homepage
    As someone who has seen, at first hand, the horrors of undetected cancer, this could just the ticket.
    My Father died from cancer last year. He had a secondary tumor removed a year before, but the specialists who saw him could apparently not detect a primary. It was clear to us that there was one (he was degenerating), but current detection techniques, apparently, couldn't find it. An autopsy was conducted when he died, at which point extensive cancer was located.
    Part of the cure for cancer must surely be early, and accurate, detection. Let's hope this is part of it!

    • That's easy where I'm from. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by k0de ( 619918 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @07:59AM (#6382038) Homepage
      I agree, and not just for cancer. I live in Canada and though health care is virtually free, not being able to 'buy the best advice' leaves me doubting every diagnosis, and in many cases rightfully so.

      This type of device, if extended for other types of detection, could be exactly what 'Dr. Dad' needs to ensure the family is in general good heath without having to rely on the shady advice of under skilled or under paid health care staff.

      • Re:That's easy where I'm from. (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I understand what you're hoping for (in fact my family and I tend to home-based healthcare rather than medical community). Unfortunately, a simple black box for all cancers is not likely. Unfortunately I know this all too well because I have a son diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. Not all cancers are alike and there is a definitely an art to reading results of tests. We have several fantastic doctors and they do not always agree on the extent that the tumor has been removed based on MRIs. The dev

  • Discovery Channel (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 07, 2003 @07:28AM (#6381938)
    Discovery Channel had a show not too long ago about trained dogs being able to -smell- cancer on test subjects.
    Not only would it not require development or be at the hands of some biotech CEO, but dogs have been shown to lower blood pressure in people.

    Think of it: Handheld Schnauzer.

    You could probably train basset hounds too, just so that PVP would have more material.

    • Re:Discovery Channel (Score:4, Interesting)

      by SkewlD00d ( 314017 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @08:08AM (#6382076)
      Yeah, I remember that... it was very impressive. I believe that a dog has superior computational power and discrimination abilities that could easily be more accurate and reliable than some piece of technology. How much/hard would it cost to train a dog to do this? Imagine... if we have specialized dogs for certain functions... eventually will have purpose-bred species of animals/plants for very specific tasks (*cough* babel-fish :). Also, I remember something about a UV camera system for dermatologists. Btw, have you ever looked at your skin in a mirror w/ a black-light (CCUV flourescent), you can see differences in tissues in you skin not visible in white light.

    • Re:Discovery Channel (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bigpat ( 158134 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @10:53AM (#6382851)
      Problem with dogs that are trained to sniff anything, be it drugs, bombs or cancer vs some man made technology is the inconsistency between dogs and dog trainers. Although, they may be more sensitive than any man-made device, they also have bad days and can get sick without their handlers noticing. Better to have a device that while not necesarily more reliable or sensitive, might be more easily tested for variations in performance. In other words, are dogs really going to be accurately tested every day to make sure their performance isn't slipping? But maybe a device can be tested more easily and regularly to ensure quality.

      So, why are dogs so heavily relied upon at airports and for other security. Because simply put, security doesn't need to be 100%, it is largely the deterrent that the dogs provide that provides the actual security. Knowing that these dogs are being used will deter the less serious drug smugler or terrorist from the attempt. But with something like cancer screaning you really have to have a high degree of certainty and invariability in order for it to be useful.

      So the reason dogs wouldn't be used is that they just add to the cost of diagnosis, but can't rule out cancer to a high enough degree, making additional more invasive diagnostic procedures needed anyway.

      If this electronic device can be 99.9% accurate at determining that a person doesn't have cancer when used properly, then you can then focus resources on those remaining. Which is better for those that are shown to be clear of cancer. But it also changes the economics for those devices that require greater capital expenditures, they are only economical when used on larger numbers of people, but if this screaning reduces those numbers of false positives, then a fewer number of truly sick people will be left paying for the more expensive machines. So either the number of expensive diagnostic machines will need to be reduced, the price will have to come down, or the cancer sick individuals will be charged more money.

    • Think of it: Handheld Schnauzer.

      LOL- although I once had a Schnauzer and I can tell you they're bred to be watchdogs and aren't very friendly to strangers, at least not for the first 10 minutes or so. The growling and barking wouldn't lower my blood pressure much!
    • Or how about a pitbull... then you can have the tumor taken out at the same time.

  • Progress (Score:4, Funny)

    by Duds ( 100634 ) <dudley@@@enterspace...org> on Monday July 07, 2003 @07:28AM (#6381940) Homepage Journal
    We now advertise dupes directly in the story to save your inevitable searches!

    Another slashdot timesaver * teeth glint *

  • Arnt Microwaves on the body dangerious? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @07:29AM (#6381943)
    The fact the thing gives off microwaves probably means that it wont be for normal consumer use. The advantage is that it can be so every doctors office can have one or more. Because of its size. But I can see some person so worried about cancer who scans themselves all the time until the microwaves give him cancer.

    • Re:Arnt Microwaves on the body dangerious? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by G. W. Bush Junior ( 606245 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @07:48AM (#6382002) Journal
      Has it even been shown that microwaves cause cancer? To the best of my knowledge there's no conclusive evidence. The reasoning behind it is shaky as well: "We all know that sticking your head in a microwave oven is bad for you... right?" Microwaves induce movement of water molecules (when its in liquid form). so does your stove... why should we fear this without any hard scientific evidence that it is dangerous?

      • Re:Arnt Microwaves on the body dangerious? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Idarubicin ( 579475 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @11:25AM (#6383067) Journal
        "We all know that sticking your head in a microwave oven is bad for you... right?" Microwaves induce movement of water molecules (when its in liquid form). so does your stove... why should we fear this without any hard scientific evidence that it is dangerous?

        This isn't because microwaves cause cancer--there still is no consistent corpus of evidence to support that hypothesis and there may never be--but rather because they cause heating. There are proteins within our bodies' cells that begin to denature at around forty degrees celsius. At or above this temperature (which actually isn't particularly warm), the proportion of exposed cells that die is a function of temperature and exposure time. (See, for example, James R. Lepock, "Protein Denaturation During Heat Shock" in Advances in Molecular and Cell Biology, Volume 19, pages 223-259, for an excellent survey of current thought on the mechanisms at work.)

        So microwaves are dangerous because they cause heating. Not only that, they can cause deep heating in localized hotspots. In other words, you may actually do damage to the brain, eyes, and other organs very quickly without having to burn through the layers on the surface first. (This is what makes microwaves more threatening than the stovetop. The heating elements don't burn unless you come into close contact, and they can't burn deeply without lengthy exposure.)

  • How about cancer-sniffing dogs? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by blakespot ( 213991 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @07:30AM (#6381949) Homepage
    It seems you don't need electronics to detect cancer [local6.com], just man's best friend. Interesting stuff.


    blakespot

  • No Mention of False Negatives (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I really hope this thing work really really well, but the article just danced around the issue of false negatives. Anybody have any idea how many there were in the study at hand?

  • I am glad somebody found out what to do with these scanners.

    Hopefully now all those millions of CueCat [wsj.com] http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20001012.html scanners can be put to some use ....

  • cancer (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pompatus ( 642396 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @07:36AM (#6381964) Journal
    This is something that interestes me. My father died of cancer at the age of 56 and my mother survived it at the age of 44. I think I might have a high hereditary risk. The idea of cheaper detection methods is important. The cheaper it is to detect, the more frequently the tests will take place. Hopefully, this could become part of a yearly checkup.

    For the record, neither of my parents were smokers. I think I might know how I am going to die.

    • For the record, neither of my parents were smokers. I think I might know how I am going to die.

      Smoking is apparently the number two cause of cancer; the number one is diet. Eat more fresh vegetables and fruit, and less processed foods full of chemicals, and less meat! Vitamin supplements don't fill the gap. Make sure you know the origin of what you're eating, and when it was harvested etc. Oranges, for example, can be stored for a few years before appearing on the shelves.

      -- Steve

    • My father died of cancer at the age of 56 and my mother survived it at the age of 44. I think I might have a high hereditary risk.

      Um, yes? (Disclaimer: I am not a doctor, though some of my research work has involved medical physics with oncology applications.)

      Your parents may be unfortunate victims of statistics, but if there is any other family history of cancer then you might be strongly inclined to consult a genetic counsellor. Your family physician should be able to refer you.

      Many cancers now ha

  • Not convinced (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @07:36AM (#6381965)
    Now, it would of course be great if this actually worked, but I have to say I am very sceptical.

    I find it difficult to believe that the system it uses will actually produce accurate results. The human body surely has lots of tissues in different structures and densities, and also of course there are lots of different types of cancer. Most importantly, you want to get cancers when they are small - tiny even. I find it hard to believe that this scanner could do that. If you've ever seen a small cancerous mole, for instance, you will understand.

    When we're dealing with stuff like cancer, 95% (say) accuracy isn't enough. False positives result in a lot of stress for people until they have proper tests. False negatives of course have even worse consequences.

    Complex problems don't have easy solutions. Cancer is complex.

    • Re:Not convinced (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nordicfrost ( 118437 ) * on Monday July 07, 2003 @07:53AM (#6382019)
      False positives result in a lot of stress for people until they have proper tests. False negatives of course have even worse consequences.


      I have seen the hardships of a cancer patient, my mother, up close. After the operation was over and she was decleared cancer free, the nightmare began. The semi-annual check-ups. The false positive rate for these check-ups is amazinf. She has been checked 10 times the last 5 years and 8 out of ten times she was called back for confirmation of non-existense of cancer with all the fear you could imagnine. How can this device be any worse?

    • Re:Not convinced (Score:4, Informative)

      by HeyLaughingBoy ( 182206 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @08:07AM (#6382067)
      When we're dealing with stuff like cancer, 95% (say) accuracy isn't enough.

      For many blood tests, 95% accuracy is considered excellent and essentially means it's 100% accurate for all practical purposes. hCG (pregnancy test) comes to mind. I doubt current single tests for cancer are any better.
      Hmmm... a quick googling reveals that current breast cancer methods are around 80% and a new PSA (prostate) test clocks in at 98% best case.
      I'd say 95% is pretty damn good.

      • Re:Not convinced (Score:2, Informative)

        by stm2 ( 141831 )
        95% is excellent as you say. But pregnancy test, has more than 99% accuracy, since it is based on an monoclonal antibody mediated reaction.
        • You're right: my bad. I was thinking of the excerpt from the (efficacy?) documentation that said that specific test was 95% accurate for a pregnancy 48 hours old. Forgot that accuracy went up with time.

    • Re:Not convinced (Score:2, Interesting)

      by TheDredd ( 529506 )
      A lot of people get cancer, in fact everybody, but you're body normaly prevents it from growing and destroying your body, that's why younger people are less likely to get cancer then older people, they have a much higher resistance.

      So I think this scanner will find all the cancers in your body, but it's up to the doctor to determine the evil/growing cancer, and of course make the appropriate decision
  • It's great this device can be made relatively cheaply in the baton configuration.

    It seems that the technique can be expanded upon though.

    Perhaps something akin to the x-ray backscatter imagers reported earlier [slashdot.org] on Slashdot.

  • Fantastic! This will come in eh...'handy' for: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by madmarcel ( 610409 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @07:45AM (#6381992)
    Here's a post about something a fair amount of /.ers will not be familiar with: BREASTS
    (we're talking hands-on experience guys, looking does not count ;^)

    What have (wonderful wonderful) female breasts got to do with a handheld cancer-scanner?

    Well...do you know how they check women's breasts for tumors currently? No? Well...

    It involved placing a single breast in a vice-like device, which is then TIGHTENED.
    (And yes, the device is made out of COLD metal ;) It is apparently also a fairly inaccurate method of detecting breast-cancer, but that is another story :o Then repeat process for the other breast.

    (I don't have this from first-hand experience, I am not a woman :)

    Now imagine if you could do the same with a little baton...

    "I wave my magic-stick and...voila!"
    (For godsake, don't take that out of context ;)

    Testicle-cancer in men is (also) often diagnosed too late. I do not know how they confirm that you have it (AFTER the physical examination) but I hope to god it does not involve a vice-like device :o
    Again, bring on the handheld scanner...

    BTW some poster mentioned that micro-wave radiation is dangerous...nope, not as far as I can establish...(read up on the HERF gun previously mentioned on /. )

  • Good, but not the killer app (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AlecC ( 512609 ) <aleccawley@gmail.com> on Monday July 07, 2003 @07:47AM (#6382000)
    It took only few seconds of reflection before I decided this could be the killer biotech app which is needed for the dot-bio boom everyone keeps predicting someday

    Sorry, I don't see it. It doesn't lead anywhere - it isn't the first of a class of devices. Obviously, if it works (lots of qualifiers in the article) it is an extremely good gadget. Many patients will benefit, and the inventors may well become justifiably rich. But apart from a sequence of improving models, all doing the same thing but steadily better, where does it lead to? It detects cancers - full stop. It detects them by detecting the nature of cncerous growth. So it won't do anything about anything else.

    I don't want to knock it. $30,000 is cheap enough for every doctors surgery, and therefore for routine use any time there is a worry. If it is simple enough and safe enough, I could see them going into gyms etc, so you have a cancer check along with your fitness check. Even an optional sevice in airport departure loinges to while away those boring hours. (Hey - integrate it with the bomb scanners - get a free cancer check as the price of being scanned for explosives. Paranoia in a worthwhile cause).
    • There are several reasons why I believe that it has potential as a killer application in biotech. Because it is an external hardware device, it bypasses a lot of testing and regulatory issues that are such a problem for drug development. Also, to improve the diagnostic problem, I think devices like this will ultimately be used in the home, and will generate lots of data over long periods of time. This will provide a lot of opportunity for software developers to create applications which can analyze the dat
  • is that it actually gives you cancer while you scan for cancer. You can't lose!
  • I don't have to quit smoking?

  • But it hasn't been peer reviewed! (Score:5, Informative)

    by PelagicArgosy ( 454330 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @07:53AM (#6382018)
    "Experts will remain cautious until a study on TRIMprob's abilities has been examined in a peer-reviewed medical journal."

    and from the earlier BBC article:
    "The results have yet to be accepted for publication in a major medical journal - and the device will not find favour in hospitals elsewhere until they are."

    This is the key point - without peer review, there's no way of verifying the claims of a company that is obviously in marketing mode.

    Searching Medline for "Tissue Resonance InterferoMeter Probe" or "TRIMprob" turned up ZERO matches. Without good evidence, there is no reason to take this seriously as other than marketing fluff.
  • Is this dot-bio boom has something in common with me going boom after another on-line pharmacy spam?

  • Wouldn't it be great if... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mikeophile ( 647318 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @07:55AM (#6382026)
    this technology was incorporated into cell phones?

    A quick scan and you could rest assured that your phone wasn't giving you cancer.

    Until it does, that is.

  • Did anyone take a look at the pictures [akamai.net] attached to the article? Personally, I think I'd prefer the old style test... =)

  • dot everything! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nfotxn ( 519715 )
    "dot-bio boom"?! There's an over-simplified buzzword raped straight from CNN.
  • and make the following modifications.... history [slashdot.org]
  • This is the day my karma will drop below freezing.

    It's called predictor.

    Maybe not exactly your übercool application of choice. But it is definitively the killer biotech application.

    So there's no CPU in it.


    This line is here 'cause sensible people usually skip silly sigs.

  • But what we really need... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Snafoo ( 38566 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @09:52AM (#6382490) Homepage
    Is something like this for STD's. Oh come on, admit it --- condoms suck, and not in that fun way. Wouldn't you rather just tricoder her nether-regions?
    • Is something like this for STD's. Oh come on, admit it --- condoms suck, and not in that fun way. Wouldn't you rather just tricoder her nether-regions?

      Cute, and it might be handy for detecting otherwise hard-to-see lesions. Of course, you're still screwed--and not in that fun way--when it comes to AIDS. Detecting the virus or associated antibodies is going to require some wet chemistry--again, not the fun kind--for the foreseeable future.

    • If I were to sell such a device, I certainly would NOT advertise it on slashdot.

  • Article smells of hype (Score:3, Insightful)

    by djh101010 ( 656795 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @10:13AM (#6382589) Homepage Journal
    The article opens with comments about "40 minute MRI and CAT scans", and "the narrow tube of the MRI scanner". It proceeds to state that an MRI costs "$1000 of the patient's money". While the first two were maybe true a decade ago, the days of even a 20 minute MRI scan are long gone. The medical imaging business is half about diagnostic quality, and half about patient throughput.

    By speeding up the scans as they've been doing since day one, they get more patients through during a day, allowing the scanners to be more profitable, and for the costs to go down. The $3,000,000 figure is awfully high for even a high-end MRI scanner these days.

    This might very well be an interesting, promising device. But, making it look as if it's really good, by presenting deceptive information about the current options, is a huge red flag as far as I'm concerned.

    If it's really a useful device, present it as it is - don't lie about the other technologies. If it's that superior, the marketplace will find it and respond accordingly.
    • Check out this company [infraredsciences.com]....they have a way of detecting breast cancer that no one is using...works better than Mammogramms or Sonograms and it's cheaper than all of them. I think it's time we started paying attention to the new technology instead of just assuming that the old stuff works fine. Alot of people are dying of cancer and the numbers are only rising.
      • Yes, there is good new technology out there. My point is, lying about the current technology isn't the right way to promote something new. If the product is good, time will prove it out. If it's not, then one conclusion about their methods is that the only way they can look good, is to lie about the other technologies.

  • issue of false-positives (Score:3, Insightful)

    by peter303 ( 12292 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @10:18AM (#6382615)
    The case of "MRIs on demand" shows the problem of ambiguous medical tests. There are firms all around the country that will perform and interpret a thorac MRI for as little as $500. Typically they find find dozens of "anomalies", that are probably harmless. However, it may cost thousands to track these down, including in some cases biopsies. Especially since the people who voluntarily solicit these MRIs are worry-worts in the first place. Medical economists suggest that test with lots of false-positives are economically counterproductive in an already expensive medical system.
  • This would be great if it could become inexpensive enough for anyone to have. Just do a quick scan of yourself in the morning, along with brushing your teeth. "Oh good, no cancer today!"
  • ...looking for."
    *waves TRIMprob*
    It's about time that the medical community looks for less invasive ways to detect and treat disease. If there is one disadvantage of modern medicine, it's that it requires more probes, pokes, and pat downs to diagnose illness. Sometimes I'd rather be sick...
    That being said, this wand is great for being able to let you know NOW whether or not you have a tumor. That in itself is worth the advance.

  • Precision and recall (Score:2, Insightful)

    by blahedo ( 24332 )
    Different forms of medical devices have different requirements for precision---that's the percent of things they report that are correct---and recall---that's the percent of things they are supposed to find, that they do find. Before this could replace an MRI as a primary diagnostic tool, it would need to have 100% recall. Precision is less important, because if you do get a false positive, you can go in for further testing (which is not to diminish the stress and fear induced by false positives).

    In the

Slashdot Top Deals

Hackers are just a migratory lifeform with a tropism for computers.

Close