this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
155 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
58431 readers
4585 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Maybe accuracy could be a selling point but it isnt mentioned in the linked article (maybe mentioned in their paper?). Fingerstick-free methods which measure it from surface have relatively lower accuracy. Also what is measures is not the blood but interstitial glucose level so it is delayed. But the correlation and delay of saliva glucose levels against blood glucose levels is also not mentioned. I hope this research can pave the way for something beneficial eventually. Edit: I tried to dig down the original paper but it is paywalled.
It is definitely an interesting idea. I've lived through failed promises of glucose readings contact lenses and watches, I'm not sure exactly why they fail but it's made me pessimistic about things like that. I think anything new will have a hard time competing with current cgms unless it can be worn continuously for a month and/or doesn't puncture the skin at all. For the type 1 market, patients already have to puncture the skin all the time to deliver insulin and most get used to it. The interstitial fluid measurement seems to be standard for cgms, so it's on par in that regard.