Due for release next year, a non-invasive watch that monitors blood glucose.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry @Amity Island, but for me it was not cynical at all, just a quick appraisal of publicly available information in response to a what was probably a press release. Eddy, and to some extent myself, have done a lot of miles in technical development and have had to be pretty good at sorting the things with potential from the bull pooh. This one has far too many red flags against it.

Fundamentally what we are saying is that we would not invest our pension fund in the company behind it and would recommend that people do not set their sights on a successful outcome from their endeavours. Not cynical but a quick appraisal based on experience.

One or other point of view will be proven wrong in the fulness of time!
 
Docb said:
Sorry @Amity Island, but for me it was not cynical at all, just a quick appraisal of publicly available information in response to a what was probably a press release. Eddy, and to some extent myself, have done a lot of miles in technical development and have had to be pretty good at sorting the things with potential from the bull pooh. This one has far too many red flags against it.

Fundamentally what we are saying is that we would not invest our pension fund in the company behind it and would recommend that people do not set their sights on a successful outcome from their endeavours. Not cynical but a quick appraisal based on experience.

One or other point of view will be proven wrong in the fulness of time!
Click to expand...
Hello Doc B,

Nice to hear from you.

I guess it all boils down to whether one is a half glass empty or half full glass full mindset.
It's easy to look for the negative, but its equally as easy to see the positive.

I've not seen anything that confirms the product doesn't work nor can it. It's got financial backing, its undergone clinical trials, the company is owned by doctors, plenty of good stuff there.

I'd rather live with a mindset of hope.
 
Presentation by the CEO in December:

Good description of the journey, some background on NI CGM in general, some detail on positioning versus the main CGM's. Much better than their PR's, web site etc.

IMO - a real effort; long way from a product (they're really at internal late bench-prototype stage, pre miniaturisation & pre production prototyping; they need way more data); mainly engineers and would need to have a bunch more capabilities beyond engineering to actuallly address a market; best option may be to license to a bigger player if it does have legs. Not sure if they have a good handle on how much money, time, marketing and regulatory effort would be required to get something like this into the market.

Bread'n'butter product engineering issues I think not addressed in this presentation: battery life, water resistance, shock resistance. Calibration requirements?

Positioning versus the interstitial CGM's: their microwave tech means that BG is being measured directly, so no interstitial lag; early limited data says "almost as accurate"; possible advantages of being NI (though IMO not clear how much this matters versus minimally-invasive Abbott, etc). Positioned as an alert device, not really a BG monitor: simple hi/in-range/lo indications driving TIR reporting and alerts. Doesn't show actual BG levels. Is this a viable offer vs the established players?

Obviously pricing would be a big factor but no information given on this aspect. One-off buy versus constant replacement of sensors? But how long do their sensors/microwave transmitters last? (And medtech companies hate one-off widget sales with no consumables, so maybe a challenge finding the kind of partner I think they would probably need.)
 
Eddy Edson said:
Presentation by the CEO in December:

Good description of the journey, some background on NI CGM in general, some detail on positioning versus the main CGM's. Much better than their PR's, web site etc.

IMO - a real effort; long way from a product (they're really at internal late bench-prototype stage, pre miniaturisation & pre production prototyping; they need way more data); mainly engineers and would need to have a bunch more capabilities beyond engineering to actuallly address a market; best option may be to license to a bigger player if it does have legs. Not sure if they have a good handle on how much money, time, marketing and regulatory effort would be required to get something like this into the market.

Bread'n'butter product engineering issues I think not addressed in this presentation: battery life, water resistance, shock resistance. Calibration requirements?

Positioning versus the interstitial CGM's: their microwave tech means that BG is being measured directly, so no interstitial lag; early limited data says "almost as accurate"; possible advantages of being NI (though IMO not clear how much this matters versus minimally-invasive Abbott, etc). Positioned as an alert device, not really a BG monitor: simple hi/in-range/lo indications driving TIR reporting and alerts. Doesn't show actual BG levels. Is this a viable offer vs the established players?

Obviously pricing would be a big factor but no information given on this aspect. One-off buy versus constant replacement of sensors? But how long do their sensors/microwave transmitters last? (And medtech companies hate one-off widget sales with no consumables, so maybe a challenge finding the kind of partner I think they would probably need.)
Click to expand...
Good find, seems like they're making progress.

I'm undecided whether time in range is more important than getting an actual figure. It's does appear that time in range seems to be an important factor at diabetes reviews these days. Good luck to them.
 
Amity Island said:
Hello Doc B,

Nice to hear from you.

I guess it all boils down to whether one is a half glass empty or half full glass full mindset.
It's easy to look for the negative, but its equally as easy to see the positive.

I've not seen anything that confirms the product doesn't work nor can it. It's got financial backing, its undergone clinical trials, the company is owned by doctors, plenty of good stuff there.

I'd rather live with a mindset of hope.
Click to expand...
Hi Amity, half full or half empty? I dunno, all I know is that I am a natural R&D person whose instinct is to look for the areas where work needs to be done.

The presentation was interesting and Eddy has picked up on the things that were not mentioned. I also think that the idea the device will not produce readings is a little disconcerting. Rather glossed over in the presentation but I assume that the signal to noise ratio in real life as opposed to the lab conditions is so poor all you can get from the data processing is things like time in range and being out of range. Somebody talking about all the IT stuff (i.e. soluble problems) and pretty rendered pictures, rather than the hard nitty gritty (how do you get the thing to produce a reliable blood glucose measurement real time) gets my old antennae throbbing.

Good first step or chasing rainbows.... only time will tell.
 
I saw a talk at a diabetes support group about 4-5 years ago. It was a guy developing a non invasive monitor. (University based.) At that stage, they were years away from getting a wearable device. They were initially developing a desktop device that you put your finger on. Testing such things through fingers is easier than on the arm, they said. More issues involved.
I should really check for an update.
 
Apologies for resurrecting this but....

I looked at the presentation found by @Eddy Edson and could not stop thinking about it on my long country walk yesterday afternoon. Something was bugging me and I eventually worked it out. The sensor is said to based on the observation that if you fire a beam of microwave radiation at blood then the reflected radiation has a frequency shift that is dependent on the glucose content of the blood. If this actually happens then I think it goes against conventional understanding of what electromagnetic radiation is all about and has quite profound implications for our understanding of the physical world.

You can get a frequency shift in reflected radiation but that is due to the doppler effect and for that the object providing the reflection has to be moving. Use of microwave doppler shift detectors is well known, most of the automatic doors you pass through depend on it to the point where you can by the guts of the unit (microwave generator, antenna, processing circuitry) in a unit costing a few quid. I know somebody who bought one and uses it to check the speed of traffic outside his house.

I have not been able to find any other reference to frequency shifting on reflection of electromagnetic radiation under any other circumstances, let alone it being due to a small change in chemical composition of the reflecting substance. I don't find that surprising. If it was a real effect then it would have transformed chemical analysis long ago.

Anyway I am not in any way suggesting that the developers are not genuine, but I would not be surprised to find that their development is based on a misinterpretation of the observations from their early experiments. Were I considering a long term investment in the product I would be organising an independent confirmation of the reproducibility of their basic observations.
 
Docb said:
Apologies for resurrecting this but....

I looked at the presentation found by @Eddy Edson and could not stop thinking about it on my long country walk yesterday afternoon. Something was bugging me and I eventually worked it out. The sensor is said to based on the observation that if you fire a beam of microwave radiation at blood then the reflected radiation has a frequency shift that is dependent on the glucose content of the blood. If this actually happens then I think it goes against conventional understanding of what electromagnetic radiation is all about and has quite profound implications for our understanding of the physical world.

You can get a frequency shift in reflected radiation but that is due to the doppler effect and for that the object providing the reflection has to be moving. Use of microwave doppler shift detectors is well known, most of the automatic doors you pass through depend on it to the point where you can by the guts of the unit (microwave generator, antenna, processing circuitry) in a unit costing a few quid. I know somebody who bought one and uses it to check the speed of traffic outside his house.

I have not been able to find any other reference to frequency shifting on reflection of electromagnetic radiation under any other circumstances, let alone it being due to a small change in chemical composition of the reflecting substance. I don't find that surprising. If it was a real effect then it would have transformed chemical analysis long ago.

Anyway I am not in any way suggesting that the developers are not genuine, but I would not be surprised to find that their development is based on a misinterpretation of the observations from their early experiments. Were I considering a long term investment in the product I would be organising an independent confirmation of the reproducibility of their basic observations.
Click to expand...
I'm clueless about this stuff, but it seems to have some reality. Eg here's a recent literature review: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6468903/

And this: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-06926-1

But I'm not sure how precisely these studies fit with the Afon claims.

Easy enough to see the descriptions and claims in their patent filing via seach at https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/search.jsf
 
Bit of reading to do there Eddy but quick glance suggests that they talk about measuring the effect of glucose on the dielectric properties of blood at microwave frequencies. Not the same as claiming to have observed a frequency change in a reflected beam as far as my limited knowledge of these things goes.

Yet to find the patents but you have given me something to do. It's too wet to contemplate going out for my afternoon walk!
 
Found one patent. Looks like they are trying to patent Mr Spock's tricorder. Star Trek watchers will get that one!

PS... talks about amplitude, phase and resonant frequency changes but not frequency changes of a reflected wave.
 
If I recall correctly, the Leeds project used a laser & some sort of coating on a piece of glass. You would put your finger on the glass. Such things being easier with fingers than arm skin. The projected device would be too big to wear on the arm.
 
University page https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/3723/non-invasive_device_could_end_daily_finger_pricking_for_people_with_diabetes
  • The new technology, developed by Professor Gin Jose and a team in the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Leeds, uses a small device with low-powered lasers to measure blood glucose levels without penetrating the skin.
  • The technology is licensed to Glucosense Diagnostics, a spin-out company jointly formed and funded by the University of Leeds and NetScientific plc, a biomedical and healthcare technology group specialising in commercialising transformative technologies from leading universities and research institutes.
Click to expand...
Looks like a publicity piece. Unfortunately I couldn't spot a date on it.
 
Last edited:
At the heart of the new technology is a piece of nano-engineered silica glass with ions that fluoresce in infrared light when a low power laser light hits them. When the glass is in contact with the users’ skin, the extent of fluorescence signal varies in relation to the concentration of glucose in their blood. The device measures the length of time the fluorescence lasts for and uses that to calculate the glucose level in a person’s bloodstream without the need for a needle. This process takes less than 30 seconds.​
Click to expand...
 
Ralph-YK said:
University page https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/3723/non-invasive_device_could_end_daily_finger_pricking_for_people_with_diabetes

Looks like a publicity piece. Unfortunately I couldn't spot a date on it.
Click to expand...
From 2015, and the spin-out company website, https://www.glucosense.net/ doesn't look like what's promised so it looks like something odd happened there.

Searching for Glucosense Diagnostics suggests the company did exist and has a patent but I don't see a web site.
 
What’s wrong with the single prick for a fortnight of CGM? Are T1’s so feart of that (despite injecting insulin four or five times injecting insulin) . This kind of product must be aimed at T2s to get any sales.

In any event, what they are trying to do is see through skin. Skin is designed to be impenetrable. It excludes water, bacteria and fungi, and just about everything you could throw at it. And how exactly does blood passsing through capillaries reflect microwaves? It doesn’t reflect Radio 2. Such waves pass straight through the body.
 
Everything reflects, it's just how much, and whether it's measurable yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top