As a type 1 diabetic I can say this would be a huge improvement over current continuous glucose monitoring systems. No expensive disposable parts. No needing to inject a new sensor each week. No strange, uncomfortable, and (often) painful bulge stuck to your abdomen.
>We’re in discussions with the FDA, but there’s still a lot more work to do to turn this technology into a system that people can use
I'm chomping at the bit. Anyone familiar with process know how soon this could possibly be available?
As a fellow type 1 diabetic, I'm thrilled with any new projects - especially a project like this which would benefit not only type 1, and is not only targeted for type 2.
> how soon this could possibly be available?
I've been following various type 1 research for as long as I can remember (runs in the family, myself etc.), and I remember a similar enthusiasm back when glucose watches were first in production. I recall it taking years before they had an actual product (this was before the Panic Room featured watch, which wasn't a glucose measurement, but anyway.. to give you a time reference), and sadly, even when they were available from more than one manufacturer, they were still not widely available to patients (i.e. wanting to get one).
None the less, I will be following this eagerly.
On a personal note, awolf: how do you like your current monitoring system (apart from the mentioned downsides)? I've considered needle monitoring many times, but never gone for it (for idle office work I wouldn't mind, but I see it as a hinder in my personal life re: flexibility)
PS: Accuracy is not even a factor until the technology is further along, and that was one of the main issues with the watches back in the day: measuring glucose levels through human skin was not accurate or reliable enough. So I'd add years of testing at least, and maybe tweaking aswel (as the watch project did).
they have to prove that the monitoring it provides is accurate, measures what they think it does (I.e. no false positives or negatives), and doesn't v endanger the users lives (I.e. doesn't blind them I see the proposed led being an issue here since it can go off at night, and likely that it doesn't have a severe lag time that would reduce the likelihood of a life saving response because the user isn't checking blood sugar otherwise). I think all of these are definitely solvable issues so I would be surprised if it doesn't get anywhere. the specialized nature of the contact is likely not going to be an issue since the market is desperate for something better (every diabetic I know would switch to this in a blink). what I wonder is what the communication with the device is going to be like, smartphone would be nice but some of the smart watches I think would be better, and how is it powered too.
All my praise to these Google engineers and scientists. Another completely crazy idea that will really help millions of people every day. Thanks Google!
We have discovered a lot of Google X technologies in the last months. It seems that Google X is really working. We may have to stop having fun of Google+.
You've discovered a lot of Google X technologies because it is a deliberate strategy by Google to publicize these projects regardless if they will ever reach a commercial stage.
They are attempting to stay relevant and perceived to be an innovative company in the eyes of their various stakeholders (employees, potential employees, shareholders, tech press, the general public, regulators, etc.) while transitioning to today's Microsoft.
Microsoft was working on similar technology 3 years ago [1]
It looks like Google poached MSFT's engineers to work on this -- Babak Parviz was working on this at Microsoft 3 years ago, and is now cofounder of the smart contact lens team at Google.
This has very little to do with MSFT research. Microsoft collaborated with Parviz's research at University of Washington. He wasn't a MSFT engineer. He was a Professor at UW before he left for Google. His affiliation with Microsoft, and Microsoft's contribution, seems minimal.
Type I diabetic here. Assuming current tech stays where it is (not saying it will), this could easily tack 10 years on to my lifespan. For many who watch their diabetes less closely (something I cannot fault anyone for), this could add 20-30 years.
For anyone who does not know, type I diabetes is not something you can just follow a doctor's direction on and be ok. Even if you follow your doctor perfectly, there can still be serious complications, and type I diabetics with the best control are actually more likely to die from severe low blood sugars.
The reason for this is that the optimum blood glucose level is around 100. <70 and you start to be severely mentally impaired, making it difficult at times to seek treatment (finding and eating sugar, in a nutshell). On the flip side, if you are lax on insulin, your blood sugar might hover around 250 for months, and you will feel close to normal. Having a blood glucose this high on a long term basis will have long term effects that are what kill most diabetics in the long run. A low blood sugar, however, can be fatal within minutes to hours.
Either way, a continuous feedback mechanism would help tight control diabetics, and diabetics who do the minimum. Tight controllers could get faster feedback about when they are going into the serious danger zone without having to initiate any action (checking blood sugar), and lax diabetics would get a constant reminder of how they are letting there life slip away (which they normally would rarely see, since they hardly ever check their blood sugar anyway).
I have to say though, I am still a bit skeptical for a few reasons:
- One, I have been told about this sort of miracle technology ever since I was diagnosed 15 years ago.
- Two, the medical complex locks down their tech and extracts the maximum value out. There is not a single glucose device on the market that lets you extract the data out of your glucose monitor and crunch the data how you want. I have worked on hacking these devices to extract data and the legal verbiage around these activities has strongly discouraged me from releasing anything. Previous continuous glucose monitoring systems. These companies would prefer you rot in the dark, than to lose one bit of profit.
- Three, if one of these devices is not 100% perfect, it gets shot down and banned from the market. This is probably a combination of profit-motivated industry and caution-motivated government. A great example of this is a continuous glucose monitoring, non-invasive watch that came out ~ a decade ago. It was on the market for several years, before being banned. I, like just about every person in the thread I linked, would pay $10k+ for one of these, despite the reduced accuracy over traditional devices. Entrepreneurs in the health industry take note.
>type I diabetics with the best control are actually more likely to die from severe low blood sugars.
I'm very much in this crowd. Type 1, AIC of 6.3, LDL cholesterol around 100, BP of 110/72-75. This is with completely manual testing and subcutaneous insulin injections.
The problem of keeping your blood sugar towards an A1C of 6 is you have insulin reactions. Quite often, as you're being rather aggressive in keeping on top of your blood sugar. Worse, is I don't show or feel any real physiological symptoms until I'm at 60 mg/dL or below, which is getting fairly dangerous. I can be as low as 25-30 mg/dL and still be conscious and functioning. My tipoff is realizing that I either feel tired or that I can't think straight. It's hard to realize you're not thinking straight when you can't think straight, and have the cognizance to then test and get some carbs in you.
I've had a few close calls. One where I was driving a supercar north on Route 24 in Boston rush-hour traffic. I subconsciously took an exit and drove 5 miles into a suburb, and managed to not hit anything and the police officer told me I mostly obeyed traffic laws, aside from weaving about (but was completely incoherent) -- I was at 21 mg/dL when the EMTs tested me.
I once didn't compensate for alcohol, passed out on my couch, and when I finally came to in a pool of my own sweat, it took me 3 hours to traverse 30 feet to the kitchen to attempt to drink (and wear at least half) of a half-gallon of orange juice. When I finally tested 30 minutes after consuming an entire carton of OJ, I was barely in the 40s -- I have no idea how low I was, and I was lucky I ever regained consciousness.
Your last point listed here is such a big deal too. It shouldn't matter if these things are 100% effective; they need to be released and patients need to be informed that manual testing still needs to be done. If for no other reason than to help reduce the number of type 1 diabetics who die in their sleep from low blood sugars.
For anyone here not familiar with this phenomenon; it is referred to as "Dead in Bed Syndrome" This is where your blood sugar suddenly drops while you are sleeping and you don't notice the drop because you are sleeping; you then progress into a coma and then die.
To this day I almost never am able to sleep straight through the night because of the sheer dread I have that this will happen to me (In fact I'm posting this at about 3:30am where I am at, because once again I'm up in the middle of the night).
In well controlled diabetics about 55% of all severe low blood sugars occur while you are sleeping. And in type 1 diabetics about 6% of us will die in our sleep by age 40.
My mother has been full on diabetic for thirty plus years. She uses a pump now as it does offer some convenience over just using needles. It still is not easy.
The problem I see with this technology is that her biggest threat is at night. She can go to bed with perfectly fine blood sugar levels, just like any other night, and wake up with a level in the forties. What worked good for her? Besides an attentive spouse a dog works wonders too.
Still I haven't seen an accurate blood sugar monitor, there are variances depending on where they are placed on the body and even at times the same place may not yield similar numbers each week. The same goes for where her pump connects, some weeks its a great spot, another week a similar spot isn't quite the same.
Top it off with, her comment about asking three doctors in day and getting four opinions. The flip side of low blood sugar is silly high numbers. Going to the hospital with 300, or worse 600 plus, and having to debate the emergency room staff that you know whats happening isn't fun. Having to have your level tested three or four times because they cannot believe your functional at those levels is a sign of how much even much of the medical world has problems with this disease.
I am all for new technologies but I believe your chances lie in first not ignoring the diagnoses, second making sure to take the medicine assigned; especially your insulin; third, enlisting your family and even friends in emergency treatment aids, fourth being purely your genetics, and finally knowing when to doubt a medical professional and how to engage them intelligently.
I'm expecting sensor tech to explode in the coming years, including noninvasive cgm. Imagine high level endurance athletes on a full biometrics panel during a race, including glycose and blood pressure (among other things).
What scale is that glucose level measured in? I ask because my partner is diabetic but and those levels are supposed to be between 6 and 12 mmol / L. Clearly 100 is not expressed as mmol/L.
Have you tried to control your diabetes with a ketogenic diet? Dr. Bernstein, a type 1 diabetic since 1946, is successfully managing his condition with it, and wrote a book about it.
Continuous glucose monitors have been around for a while. I'm not sure who this would help.
The fundamental problem is that glucose levels in non-blood fluids do not exactly match blood glucose. The current monitor solutions use interstitial fluid in the skin. They still require the user to test themselves several times a day and recalibrate the monitor based on blood glucose, and they can't alert the user if their blood sugar is low until it's already a serious situation. They also frequently give false positives.
This is a new (but very clever!) way to do something that has been around for a while, not a revolution, unless tears track blood glucose much closer than interstitial fluid does. Simply based on first principles, that seems unlikely.
And there are basic hygiene problems wearing contacts while you're asleep, which is when monitoring would be most useful. If google has the technology to make contact lenses that you can wear 24*7 without getting ulcerative keratitis, that's more revolutionary than another way to monitor blood sugar.
> And there are basic hygiene problems wearing contacts while you're asleep, which is when monitoring would be most useful. If google has the technology to make contact lenses that you can wear 24/7 without getting ulcerative keratitis, that's more revolutionary than another way to monitor blood sugar
overnight and extended-wear contacts (for up to a month, I believe) have been available for many years now.
There are severe drawbacks to CGM like scarring, infection and most importantly the expense. In the UK CGMs and even insulin pumps are almost impossible to get most places on the NHS.
This seems like a prototype of what Google Glass will evolve into. The medical device will offer a first generation of solutions to several major problems for augmented reality contact lenses: fitting "an antenna for wireless data communications, a chip to process data, and tiny battery onto a tiny, thin, curved surface..."[1]
Then, a later version will need to solve the problem of projecting crisp images from the contact lens onto the user's retina. Google's experience with Glass seems like it could inform that effort. Perhaps we'll see this product on the market with significant usage within 10 years.
Augmented reality contact lenses have other implications. For example: what does it mean for privacy and advertising to not being able to shut one's eyes?
I am encouraged by the fact that Google is working in this area. If any company can overcome the obstacles to this technology becoming available soon and at a reasonable price, it would probably be Google.
I am discouraged by the fact that the underlying technology (measuring glucose from tears) was first reported more than two years ago. There is another (sort of) non-invasive glucose measuring technology that involves injecting a biofluorescent dye under the skin, then using a device that measures the fluorescence that varies with the blood glucoe levels. This technology was also first reported years ago, and is also apparently nowhere near being available.
I'm amazed at how many people on HN are diabetic !
Could be an interesting study on cause/effect - is all this sitting at screens contributing to an epidemic or are there other factors ? Perhaps respondents are just self-selecting because of the subject matter ?
It's also interesting how anyone who needs to track their blood sugars likes the idea of an easier and more convenient method - typical finger prick readings up to 4 times a day can leave your fingers in a real mess and pretty painful so even sticking something to your eyeballs sounds attractive !
Type II is caused by external influences, such as unhealty life-style, old age, or other medical conditions (which include genetic defects or other genetic variations).
Type I is genetic. If you have the faulty genes, you get it. Regardless of lifestyle, health, country and whatnot.
Another thing many people are confused with, is "severety of Diabetes". You can have "very severe Type II" or "just a little Type II", but you cannot have "severe Type I", Type I is binary: you have it or you don't.
As a Type I, I'd love to see the medical world and then the rest of us, using a different term for Type I Diabetics, because the deseases are entirely different: the cause is different, the effect is similar.
As a Type I, people often blame me for my desease. Often people think it is because of unhealty lifestyle. "Ah you are a diabetic, many programmers have Diabetes, guess its because they sit around all day, haha". This is infuriating. No matter how healthy I am, whether I am a programmer or bycicle-courier, I'd have gotten my Diabetes anyway. Type I is one of these deseases that you can do absolutely nothing against, other then not passing on your faulty genes to children.
Edit: clarified the sentence where I am blamed for having Type I.
Edit2: As pointed out below, Type II can be influenced by genetics too, made that more clear.
This is why I still love Google. Between this, self-driving cars and other world-changing projects, I say take my data if you need it. You're one of the few companies in this world that seems to bring a big, direct net benefit to humanity.
One major concern I would have is that, in diabetic patients their eyes experience more dryness than non-diabetic patients. This might lead to more scratches on the cornea and prone to further infections and ulcers. As diabetics care 101, diabetics patients have mucher high risk of systematic infections. And this is all way before any diabetic retinopathy develops in those patients. So why Google[x] thinks it's a good idea to have diabetics patients wear contact lens?
AS a Type I, my doctor advised me strongly to start wearing glasses and stop wearing lenses. Because they would apparently increase the risk of early blindness even more.
I know there are sprays available for people with dry eyes who are prone to infection. Would those help in this situation or is it more complex than that?
Where's all the FUD about collecting user data and doing evil things with it that we've been seeing in the Google+Nest stories lately?
"But what about when google sells your data to insurance companies, who then penalize diabetics for not maintaining specific glucose levels?'
"Do you really want google to know every single thing you put into your body?"
"Can we trust google to not put advertisements in the contact lens, making you watch a 15 second commercial before being able to read your gluose levels?"
I think this is one of many such implementations which we will see in the next few months. Not long ago, the FDA posted their guidelines on mobile health, which will most likely be part of the system, finally establishing a hint of what they will require to give an approval to a mobile system in the medical field. I have some experience in this, and can tell you it is very exciting. No blatant ad here, sorry!
Since the risks for ventures in this field have dropped significantly, devices such as this lens now have a much higher probability to actually see the light of day and not just be hidden in the archives, on thrown away napkins and spreadsheets.
Yes, Microsoft worked on it a few years back – yet seem to have dropped the ball or shifted their focus, I have also heard of such a project at Sanofi and research institutes around the world – yet a google X project may potentially be what this concept needs to make progress and actually have an impact. My sincere gratefulness to you guys at X for going at it!
Forgot to mention, like many others in this thread I am a type 1 diabetic since 30 years, so my gratitude goes a tad further than only thinking it's cool.
Type 1 also, and I fully admit that part of what prevents me from using pump therapy is the CGM technology and how invasive and frustrating it is. The lens project gives me hope, but as others in the thread have mentioned - I've gotten my hopes up on several occasions about potential technologies and agree that it seems like a lot of it comes down to profit. Full disclosure, I'm the COO of a tech company and I love data - so a constant frustration is lack of consistent data that can be manipulated in usable ways. (Also mentioned by others in the thread.)
I don't at all want to downplay the honest importance of this project — this is the true sort of real "tangibly improving people's lives" technology that not enough people are aspiring to these days — but the timing of this announcement is very strategic on Google's part. Days after people get VERY upset at Google for buying Nest, and moaning about Google's evil surveillance state, Google turns around and announces something that's a legitimate force for good in the world. Very clever.
Please. Like this project was just sitting there, waiting for a media shitstorm to pop up. The knee-jerk cynicism on these threads is truly getting stupid.
The timing is almost certainly because the project's secrecy had been recently compromised by the FDA revealing a meeting with the engineering team on its public calendar.
At first, I thought this could be quite intrusive. I mean, you're putting something in your eye! It's the same discussion as the biometry authentication systems (retina scanning, saliva, etc).
But then I realized: the alternative is to put a piece of hardware under your skin! It will be embeded in you "forever" and can only be removed via surgical procedures...
These contact lens, if ever available, will in fact revolutionize the diabetes scene and may open precedent to new "wearable" technologies targeting health.
Maybe. You need to understand that diabetes equipment is a lot like a Segway - it's interesting and solves a problem but it's expensive and somewhat infeasible.
Many things could contribute to this not being as revolutionary as it sounds. Everything from cost down to accuracy is a concern. Diabetics do like to have hope that this will be the game-changer but they've heard that many times before.
Few years ago I saw a feature in IEEE spectrum about contact lens displays/computers. Apparently, because they're so small and have such low power requirements, they can power themselves off of the ambient radio / wifi / cell / etc signals
I'm wondering this too. Could it pick up on an electrical potential from the eye itself? Or could the reading be gathered with only as much of a signal as an RFID tag gets?
Anyone else have a problem where if they read an interesting story like this about potential future technology, they are virtually incapacitated and unproductive for the rest of the day thinking about the potential?
Obviously, a Google Glass or Oculus Rift equivalent but with contact lenses has to be one thing everyone's long thought of. But what about activating a contextual display by closing one eye briefly (a map or information about a person you're meeting), or seeing a definition of a word spoken in conversation by closing the other eye, or watching a movie with both eyes closed, reading a book the same way, getting song recognition data at any point, etc.
Could we see high-res displays worked into lenses so that they worked, were eventually cheap enough and able to operate in a "pass through" mode so they didn't other interrupt regular vision?
Are any companies working on it? Is it possible? What would be the key challenges?
Building a VR contact lens is orders of magnitude harder than this. Key challenges would be:
1. Component size.
2. Power. The glucose monitor is similar to an RFID that can be powered by radio waves. Driving a screen or laser would require much more power. So you'd probably need some sort of inductive coil matched to regular eyewear.
3. Focus. You can't at that distance. So you'd probably have to beam an image directly onto the retina with a laser.
4. Occlusion of the pupil. Really hard to avoid this one. You might have to pair with a camera to add sight back as a feed. However there could be benefits with this too - eg. night vision
5. Health. Beaming power could be a cancer risk. Also contact lenses need to breath to prevent corneal neovascularization and other nasty effects of hypoxia. Modern contacts are gas permeable but adding electronics would hinder the flow.
This is really awesome, and sounds like a great thing for people with diabetes (if the accuracy issues are solved).
Further down the line, technologies like this could be a great thing for the rest of us too. We all experience peaks and troughs in our blood glucose and in those troughs we often feel tired, without really knowing why. It would be great to be able to have continuous feedback like "your blood glucose spiked and now is low after you drank that bottle of lemonade an hour ago". Something like this would really help people to make better decisions and would be a great boon for general public health.
Am I the only one that thinks Google[x] is just the arm of google that looks for far future intellectual property to patent and never really produces usable tech?
You are wrong. They spin off the tech that they do want to commercialize. E.g., Brain use to be part of X, but now it's its own group. Same with Glass.
You have a point. But I think Google's vision and mission and intention is to move forward the technology in every area. Financially possible, not necessarily intelligently possible. The acquisition of Nest shows they may not have the gene for building hardware systems, devices are ok, but it's not a long-terms solution without a system in place.
Being diabetic, I would be quite happy to receive an image saying, hey your blood sugar is low, why not get some sugary snacks right across the road at Acme Candy Store - get 10% off during the next 10 minutes.
To take this to a purely business/tech place - this is an interesting market for prototyping contact-lense electronics; maybe in 10 or 20 years the new Glass will just be a contact, but for now this looks like one of the few applications where a sensor and two LEDs (high and low) can provide a lot of user value.
I think it would be just like RFIDs and NFCs: you send power to the antenna, the chip uses it to make a measurement, and to send it back.
Maybe it can take enough energy from the ambient RFs. Maybe we will see a lot of people bringing their phones close to their faces from time to time, and people would be confused. "What are you doing with your phone, do you have an ear in your eye?"
We have developed a non-invasive system for measuring blood glucose (patent protected, many publications in peer reviewed magazines, working prototype).
If someone has contacts in the VC scene or is working in the VC scene and is interested please let me know.
Sooner or later a competitor technology will come out to lines of Google Glass for contacts; ultimately the 3rd episode of Black Mirror, where you can record 24-hours of your life via your eye contacts.
awolf|12 years ago
>We’re in discussions with the FDA, but there’s still a lot more work to do to turn this technology into a system that people can use
I'm chomping at the bit. Anyone familiar with process know how soon this could possibly be available?
klapinat0r|12 years ago
> how soon this could possibly be available?
I've been following various type 1 research for as long as I can remember (runs in the family, myself etc.), and I remember a similar enthusiasm back when glucose watches were first in production. I recall it taking years before they had an actual product (this was before the Panic Room featured watch, which wasn't a glucose measurement, but anyway.. to give you a time reference), and sadly, even when they were available from more than one manufacturer, they were still not widely available to patients (i.e. wanting to get one).
None the less, I will be following this eagerly.
On a personal note, awolf: how do you like your current monitoring system (apart from the mentioned downsides)? I've considered needle monitoring many times, but never gone for it (for idle office work I wouldn't mind, but I see it as a hinder in my personal life re: flexibility)
PS: Accuracy is not even a factor until the technology is further along, and that was one of the main issues with the watches back in the day: measuring glucose levels through human skin was not accurate or reliable enough. So I'd add years of testing at least, and maybe tweaking aswel (as the watch project did).
simcop2387|12 years ago
they have to prove that the monitoring it provides is accurate, measures what they think it does (I.e. no false positives or negatives), and doesn't v endanger the users lives (I.e. doesn't blind them I see the proposed led being an issue here since it can go off at night, and likely that it doesn't have a severe lag time that would reduce the likelihood of a life saving response because the user isn't checking blood sugar otherwise). I think all of these are definitely solvable issues so I would be surprised if it doesn't get anywhere. the specialized nature of the contact is likely not going to be an issue since the market is desperate for something better (every diabetic I know would switch to this in a blink). what I wonder is what the communication with the device is going to be like, smartphone would be nice but some of the smart watches I think would be better, and how is it powered too.
thrownaway2424|12 years ago
fesja|12 years ago
We have discovered a lot of Google X technologies in the last months. It seems that Google X is really working. We may have to stop having fun of Google+.
IBM|12 years ago
They are attempting to stay relevant and perceived to be an innovative company in the eyes of their various stakeholders (employees, potential employees, shareholders, tech press, the general public, regulators, etc.) while transitioning to today's Microsoft.
blhack|12 years ago
Google+, honestly, is awesome. The auto-awesome feature is the coolest thing ever.
nfoz|12 years ago
dshankar|12 years ago
It looks like Google poached MSFT's engineers to work on this -- Babak Parviz was working on this at Microsoft 3 years ago, and is now cofounder of the smart contact lens team at Google.
[1]: Functional Contact Lens Monitors Blood Sugar Without Needles (http://research.microsoft.com/apps/video/dl.aspx?id=150832)
psbp|12 years ago
mikeyouse|12 years ago
cargo8|12 years ago
If people are interested, here is a relevant research paper in IEEE about the massive potential contact lenses have to mate technology and bioinformatics: http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/bionics/augmented-realit...
psbp|12 years ago
This particular implementation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6g581tJ7bM#t=10m15s
morganherlocker|12 years ago
For anyone who does not know, type I diabetes is not something you can just follow a doctor's direction on and be ok. Even if you follow your doctor perfectly, there can still be serious complications, and type I diabetics with the best control are actually more likely to die from severe low blood sugars.
The reason for this is that the optimum blood glucose level is around 100. <70 and you start to be severely mentally impaired, making it difficult at times to seek treatment (finding and eating sugar, in a nutshell). On the flip side, if you are lax on insulin, your blood sugar might hover around 250 for months, and you will feel close to normal. Having a blood glucose this high on a long term basis will have long term effects that are what kill most diabetics in the long run. A low blood sugar, however, can be fatal within minutes to hours.
Either way, a continuous feedback mechanism would help tight control diabetics, and diabetics who do the minimum. Tight controllers could get faster feedback about when they are going into the serious danger zone without having to initiate any action (checking blood sugar), and lax diabetics would get a constant reminder of how they are letting there life slip away (which they normally would rarely see, since they hardly ever check their blood sugar anyway).
I have to say though, I am still a bit skeptical for a few reasons:
- One, I have been told about this sort of miracle technology ever since I was diagnosed 15 years ago.
- Two, the medical complex locks down their tech and extracts the maximum value out. There is not a single glucose device on the market that lets you extract the data out of your glucose monitor and crunch the data how you want. I have worked on hacking these devices to extract data and the legal verbiage around these activities has strongly discouraged me from releasing anything. Previous continuous glucose monitoring systems. These companies would prefer you rot in the dark, than to lose one bit of profit.
- Three, if one of these devices is not 100% perfect, it gets shot down and banned from the market. This is probably a combination of profit-motivated industry and caution-motivated government. A great example of this is a continuous glucose monitoring, non-invasive watch that came out ~ a decade ago. It was on the market for several years, before being banned. I, like just about every person in the thread I linked, would pay $10k+ for one of these, despite the reduced accuracy over traditional devices. Entrepreneurs in the health industry take note.
[1] [http://www.diabetesdaily.com/forum/testing-blood-sugar/61908...]
MrFoof|12 years ago
I'm very much in this crowd. Type 1, AIC of 6.3, LDL cholesterol around 100, BP of 110/72-75. This is with completely manual testing and subcutaneous insulin injections.
The problem of keeping your blood sugar towards an A1C of 6 is you have insulin reactions. Quite often, as you're being rather aggressive in keeping on top of your blood sugar. Worse, is I don't show or feel any real physiological symptoms until I'm at 60 mg/dL or below, which is getting fairly dangerous. I can be as low as 25-30 mg/dL and still be conscious and functioning. My tipoff is realizing that I either feel tired or that I can't think straight. It's hard to realize you're not thinking straight when you can't think straight, and have the cognizance to then test and get some carbs in you.
I've had a few close calls. One where I was driving a supercar north on Route 24 in Boston rush-hour traffic. I subconsciously took an exit and drove 5 miles into a suburb, and managed to not hit anything and the police officer told me I mostly obeyed traffic laws, aside from weaving about (but was completely incoherent) -- I was at 21 mg/dL when the EMTs tested me.
I once didn't compensate for alcohol, passed out on my couch, and when I finally came to in a pool of my own sweat, it took me 3 hours to traverse 30 feet to the kitchen to attempt to drink (and wear at least half) of a half-gallon of orange juice. When I finally tested 30 minutes after consuming an entire carton of OJ, I was barely in the 40s -- I have no idea how low I was, and I was lucky I ever regained consciousness.
bigtunacan|12 years ago
For anyone here not familiar with this phenomenon; it is referred to as "Dead in Bed Syndrome" This is where your blood sugar suddenly drops while you are sleeping and you don't notice the drop because you are sleeping; you then progress into a coma and then die.
To this day I almost never am able to sleep straight through the night because of the sheer dread I have that this will happen to me (In fact I'm posting this at about 3:30am where I am at, because once again I'm up in the middle of the night).
In well controlled diabetics about 55% of all severe low blood sugars occur while you are sleeping. And in type 1 diabetics about 6% of us will die in our sleep by age 40.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1826245 http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes-complications/dead-in-bed... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2551657/
joeconway|12 years ago
http://www.bayerdiabetes.co.uk/sections/products-for-my-diab...
Shivetya|12 years ago
My mother has been full on diabetic for thirty plus years. She uses a pump now as it does offer some convenience over just using needles. It still is not easy.
The problem I see with this technology is that her biggest threat is at night. She can go to bed with perfectly fine blood sugar levels, just like any other night, and wake up with a level in the forties. What worked good for her? Besides an attentive spouse a dog works wonders too.
Still I haven't seen an accurate blood sugar monitor, there are variances depending on where they are placed on the body and even at times the same place may not yield similar numbers each week. The same goes for where her pump connects, some weeks its a great spot, another week a similar spot isn't quite the same.
Top it off with, her comment about asking three doctors in day and getting four opinions. The flip side of low blood sugar is silly high numbers. Going to the hospital with 300, or worse 600 plus, and having to debate the emergency room staff that you know whats happening isn't fun. Having to have your level tested three or four times because they cannot believe your functional at those levels is a sign of how much even much of the medical world has problems with this disease.
I am all for new technologies but I believe your chances lie in first not ignoring the diagnoses, second making sure to take the medicine assigned; especially your insulin; third, enlisting your family and even friends in emergency treatment aids, fourth being purely your genetics, and finally knowing when to doubt a medical professional and how to engage them intelligently.
aarondf|12 years ago
I too would pay $10k+ for one of these for precisely the reason you mentioned above: adding years to my life.
erkkie|12 years ago
hedwall|12 years ago
namank|12 years ago
How would reduced accuracy really help you? I'm imagining that it could be worse since it could introduce anxiety...
kathleenj|12 years ago
"Functional Contact Lens Monitors Blood Sugar Without Needles"
http://research.microsoft.com/apps/video/dl.aspx?id=150832
simik|12 years ago
http://www.diabetes-book.com/book/mylife.shtml
caseydurfee|12 years ago
The fundamental problem is that glucose levels in non-blood fluids do not exactly match blood glucose. The current monitor solutions use interstitial fluid in the skin. They still require the user to test themselves several times a day and recalibrate the monitor based on blood glucose, and they can't alert the user if their blood sugar is low until it's already a serious situation. They also frequently give false positives.
This is a new (but very clever!) way to do something that has been around for a while, not a revolution, unless tears track blood glucose much closer than interstitial fluid does. Simply based on first principles, that seems unlikely.
And there are basic hygiene problems wearing contacts while you're asleep, which is when monitoring would be most useful. If google has the technology to make contact lenses that you can wear 24*7 without getting ulcerative keratitis, that's more revolutionary than another way to monitor blood sugar.
magicalist|12 years ago
overnight and extended-wear contacts (for up to a month, I believe) have been available for many years now.
joeconway|12 years ago
_paranoia|12 years ago
Then, a later version will need to solve the problem of projecting crisp images from the contact lens onto the user's retina. Google's experience with Glass seems like it could inform that effort. Perhaps we'll see this product on the market with significant usage within 10 years.
Augmented reality contact lenses have other implications. For example: what does it mean for privacy and advertising to not being able to shut one's eyes?
1. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/517476/google-glass-tod...
kamens|12 years ago
Crossing my fingers very hard. Want this to be reality.
caseydurfee|12 years ago
inetsee|12 years ago
I am discouraged by the fact that the underlying technology (measuring glucose from tears) was first reported more than two years ago. There is another (sort of) non-invasive glucose measuring technology that involves injecting a biofluorescent dye under the skin, then using a device that measures the fluorescence that varies with the blood glucoe levels. This technology was also first reported years ago, and is also apparently nowhere near being available.
mortov|12 years ago
Could be an interesting study on cause/effect - is all this sitting at screens contributing to an epidemic or are there other factors ? Perhaps respondents are just self-selecting because of the subject matter ?
It's also interesting how anyone who needs to track their blood sugars likes the idea of an easier and more convenient method - typical finger prick readings up to 4 times a day can leave your fingers in a real mess and pretty painful so even sticking something to your eyeballs sounds attractive !
berkes|12 years ago
Type II is caused by external influences, such as unhealty life-style, old age, or other medical conditions (which include genetic defects or other genetic variations).
Type I is genetic. If you have the faulty genes, you get it. Regardless of lifestyle, health, country and whatnot.
Another thing many people are confused with, is "severety of Diabetes". You can have "very severe Type II" or "just a little Type II", but you cannot have "severe Type I", Type I is binary: you have it or you don't.
As a Type I, I'd love to see the medical world and then the rest of us, using a different term for Type I Diabetics, because the deseases are entirely different: the cause is different, the effect is similar.
As a Type I, people often blame me for my desease. Often people think it is because of unhealty lifestyle. "Ah you are a diabetic, many programmers have Diabetes, guess its because they sit around all day, haha". This is infuriating. No matter how healthy I am, whether I am a programmer or bycicle-courier, I'd have gotten my Diabetes anyway. Type I is one of these deseases that you can do absolutely nothing against, other then not passing on your faulty genes to children.
Edit: clarified the sentence where I am blamed for having Type I. Edit2: As pointed out below, Type II can be influenced by genetics too, made that more clear.
TeMPOraL|12 years ago
jerryhuang100|12 years ago
berkes|12 years ago
k-mcgrady|12 years ago
dclara|12 years ago
oh_sigh|12 years ago
"But what about when google sells your data to insurance companies, who then penalize diabetics for not maintaining specific glucose levels?'
"Do you really want google to know every single thing you put into your body?"
"Can we trust google to not put advertisements in the contact lens, making you watch a 15 second commercial before being able to read your gluose levels?"
trekky1700|12 years ago
f-debong|12 years ago
Since the risks for ventures in this field have dropped significantly, devices such as this lens now have a much higher probability to actually see the light of day and not just be hidden in the archives, on thrown away napkins and spreadsheets.
Yes, Microsoft worked on it a few years back – yet seem to have dropped the ball or shifted their focus, I have also heard of such a project at Sanofi and research institutes around the world – yet a google X project may potentially be what this concept needs to make progress and actually have an impact. My sincere gratefulness to you guys at X for going at it!
Forgot to mention, like many others in this thread I am a type 1 diabetic since 30 years, so my gratitude goes a tad further than only thinking it's cool.
selimthegrim|12 years ago
cpeterso|12 years ago
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/glucose-tattoo-0528.html
j_s|12 years ago
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/HackingDiabetes.aspx
ginzaerin|12 years ago
lazerwalker|12 years ago
throwawaay|12 years ago
The timing is almost certainly because the project's secrecy had been recently compromised by the FDA revealing a meeting with the engineering team on its public calendar.
http://mobile.theverge.com/2014/1/10/5297216/google-x-team-m...
wmeredith|12 years ago
fjcaetano|12 years ago
But then I realized: the alternative is to put a piece of hardware under your skin! It will be embeded in you "forever" and can only be removed via surgical procedures...
These contact lens, if ever available, will in fact revolutionize the diabetes scene and may open precedent to new "wearable" technologies targeting health.
Zimahl|12 years ago
Many things could contribute to this not being as revolutionary as it sounds. Everything from cost down to accuracy is a concern. Diabetics do like to have hope that this will be the game-changer but they've heard that many times before.
notatoad|12 years ago
beernutz|12 years ago
This link explains it better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6g581tJ7bM#t=10m15s
eqdw|12 years ago
nfoz|12 years ago
ewolfe|12 years ago
ctrl|12 years ago
I dont care if i have to clockwork orange my eyelids, this sounds awesome
prawn|12 years ago
Obviously, a Google Glass or Oculus Rift equivalent but with contact lenses has to be one thing everyone's long thought of. But what about activating a contextual display by closing one eye briefly (a map or information about a person you're meeting), or seeing a definition of a word spoken in conversation by closing the other eye, or watching a movie with both eyes closed, reading a book the same way, getting song recognition data at any point, etc.
Could we see high-res displays worked into lenses so that they worked, were eventually cheap enough and able to operate in a "pass through" mode so they didn't other interrupt regular vision?
Are any companies working on it? Is it possible? What would be the key challenges?
tjmc|12 years ago
1. Component size.
2. Power. The glucose monitor is similar to an RFID that can be powered by radio waves. Driving a screen or laser would require much more power. So you'd probably need some sort of inductive coil matched to regular eyewear.
3. Focus. You can't at that distance. So you'd probably have to beam an image directly onto the retina with a laser.
4. Occlusion of the pupil. Really hard to avoid this one. You might have to pair with a camera to add sight back as a feed. However there could be benefits with this too - eg. night vision
5. Health. Beaming power could be a cancer risk. Also contact lenses need to breath to prevent corneal neovascularization and other nasty effects of hypoxia. Modern contacts are gas permeable but adding electronics would hinder the flow.
benjvi|12 years ago
Further down the line, technologies like this could be a great thing for the rest of us too. We all experience peaks and troughs in our blood glucose and in those troughs we often feel tired, without really knowing why. It would be great to be able to have continuous feedback like "your blood glucose spiked and now is low after you drank that bottle of lemonade an hour ago". Something like this would really help people to make better decisions and would be a great boon for general public health.
luuio|12 years ago
lowglow|12 years ago
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
nl|12 years ago
fatjokes|12 years ago
dclara|12 years ago
matznerd|12 years ago
blueskin_|12 years ago
With a google lens, they could even project adverts directly onto people's eyes.
mortov|12 years ago
jisaacks|12 years ago
So wait a minute, your eyes will start flashing when your glucose levels are spiking?
RA_Fisher|12 years ago
azernik|12 years ago
sytelus|12 years ago
BenoitP|12 years ago
Maybe it can take enough energy from the ambient RFs. Maybe we will see a lot of people bringing their phones close to their faces from time to time, and people would be confused. "What are you doing with your phone, do you have an ear in your eye?"
nfoz|12 years ago
dia473|12 years ago
If someone has contacts in the VC scene or is working in the VC scene and is interested please let me know.
(throw away account)
unknown|12 years ago
[deleted]
chany2|12 years ago
efremjw|12 years ago
sarojt|12 years ago
unknown|12 years ago
[deleted]
BrainInAJar|12 years ago
psbp|12 years ago
ericthegoodking|12 years ago
kimonos|12 years ago
guidefreitas|12 years ago
bsherrill|12 years ago