Apple patent hints at non-invasive glucose monitoring tech for Apple Watch

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 59
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,900member
    gatorguy said:
    avon b7 said:
    This would be a literally life changing advance if it can be made reliable. Something that has so far resisted all attempts to crack this particular nut.

    Reliable non-invasive constant glucose monitoring would be Nobel worthy.
    LifePlus claims to have cracked this nut too with their Lifeleaf wearable. Seems like the problem may finally be really close to being solved?
    https://www.wareable.com/health-and-wellbeing/lifeplus-lifeleaf-continuous-blood-glucose-2103

    Best of all they don't want to be the only hardware provider, in fact not really interested in a self-branded watch at all. They are open-sourcing much of it and licensing the software.

    BUT....
    It's claimed by experts in the field that reliable non-invasive glucose monitoring is impossible as it would "require changing the laws of physics" so it will be super-interesting to see what the results of the current patient trials at LifePlus are. 
    https://www.wareable.com/health-and-wellbeing/noninvasive-glucose-tracking-impossible-valencell-1268

    BTW, Wareable.com is a great source for keeping up with the latest developments in smartwatches and similar tech. One of my go-to's. 
    Interesting. Lifeleaf announced they were entering the hardware market in May but the trail seems to have gone cold since then.

    I hope a reliable solution is on the horizon. Non-invasive alerts for hipoglucemia (especially during sleep) would represent a major leap forward in detection.
  • Reply 22 of 59
    I’m skeptical Apple will be the first to bring this to market. Wouldn’t it need FDA approval? Seems to me it would start in the medical devices community and once proven to work Apple could bring it to the masses.
    Probably not, if Apple doesn't advertise it as a medical device.
    JWSC
  • Reply 23 of 59
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,651member
    Glad to see Samsung’s R&D division in Cupertino making a difference! 
    SpamSandwichanton zuykov
  • Reply 24 of 59
    deminsddeminsd Posts: 143member
    melgross said:
    deminsd said:
    Reliability is key if we are to trust the readings.  So far, the AW heart rate monitor hasn't proven to be reliable enough for me and that should be relatively simple.  

    Is there any possibility this will be in the AW4, or is it too early?
    You’re wrong about that. I don’t know what your comparison is from. Mine is extremely accurate. When I was in the hospital, after getting a warning about high heart rate from my watch, which was correct, I found that mine matched the hospital’s equipment that I was connected to by plus or minus one point. This was for 4 days at first, then when I went back, for another week and a half.

    while I can’t say what you’re doing, I’ve found that people who do complain to me about it are wearing their watches too loosely. Another thing which plagues certified medical equipment, as told to me by a doctor, is that occasionally, the measurement coincides with the rise, or fall, of the heartbeat, resulting in a momentary high, or low count, or apparent dropout of a reading.
    I said RELIABLE, not ACCURATE.  I've noticed mine does not reliably give me an accurate reading every time.  Most of the time, it does.  But I monitor my HR on my watch during my daily activity (workout).  MOST OF THE TIME, it shows me readings that I would predict at that point in my activity based on historical readings.  Other times, it shows my HR at rest levels during higher cardio activity.  NOT ALWAYS, but sometimes.  Sometimes, it shows my heart rate at a too high of a rate during activity (I take the same route every morning), and I watch it and can literally see the rate tank over a period of 15 seconds down to what is normal for that time in my workout.  That's what I mean by reliable.  Other times, the HR is blanked out completely for period of 30 seconds or so.  

    i keep my watch sensor surface clean and relatively tight (but not too tight) on my wrist.  


    gatorguy
  • Reply 25 of 59
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 4,660member
    deminsd said:
    Reliability is key if we are to trust the readings.  So far, the AW heart rate monitor hasn't proven to be reliable enough for me and that should be relatively simple.  

    Is there any possibility this will be in the AW4, or is it too early?
    Trust in the results is relative:   A full blood draw (done on some on some in the hospital) is more accurate than the hospital grade finger prick glucose monitor -- which in turn is more accurate than a consumer grade finger prick glucose monitor.

    This light based method could just add another tier to those levels of accuracy.

    In short, the question is NOT
    "Is it accurate?"
    but:
    "Is it accurate enough?"
    JWSC
  • Reply 26 of 59
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 4,660member
    I’m skeptical Apple will be the first to bring this to market. Wouldn’t it need FDA approval? Seems to me it would start in the medical devices community and once proven to work Apple could bring it to the masses.
    People seem to automatically assume that this would be a medical device for use by diabetics.

    But, it could have even more use by endurance athletes such as runners, hikers and cyclists.  Glucose is their primary fuel and when it's depleted, they "bonk" or "hit the wall".  It's why runners will "carb load" before a race or take gels and sports drinks (yes sugar is their main ingredient not electrolytes!) during a race.

    A simple way to monitor sugar levels before and during athletic events and training could make a very big difference.

    I see a glucose monitor on the AW as a bigger aid to endurance athletes than to diabetics.
  • Reply 27 of 59
    tjwolftjwolf Posts: 278member
    melgross said:

    AAnative said:
    Just wondering why the author thinks this is points to glucose monitoring?  From what I can tell spo2 or pulse oximetry is more likely and more achievable in watch form?  They hired several people away from Massimo after all.
    Because this patent points to glucose monitoring. We can be sure that Apple is pursuing several fronts at once. Which tests come out first isn’t an indication of how long they’ve been working on it, or the resources expended. Apple has hired a major team of well known, and top end doctors, and others. They could very well be researching many aspects of health. This involves very sophisticated software, chip advances as well as the sensor devices we see in this patent. Not every company can do all of this by themselves. Apple is in a unique position.
    Apple patents a lot of things that don't make it into products.  I, too, wonder how this particular patent would help them with a non-invasive solution - especially on a watch.  It seems that it requires a "sample" through which light can be shone.  Near the end, the author even mentioned another technique - "Ramen" - which measures reflections.  *That* would be a candidate for an Apple Watch - but that's not what this patent is about.
  • Reply 28 of 59
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,626member
    gatorguy said:

    BTW, Wareable.com is a great source for keeping up with the latest developments in smartwatches and similar tech. One of my go-to's. 
    Have you thought about making it one of your stay-there’s?
    sphericJWSCPickUrPoisonpalomine
  • Reply 29 of 59
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 4,660member
    deminsd said:
    Reliability is key if we are to trust the readings.  So far, the AW heart rate monitor hasn't proven to be reliable enough for me and that should be relatively simple.  

    Is there any possibility this will be in the AW4, or is it too early?
    Well the heart monitor is used in scientific research and it's the most accurate of it's kind.

    So either your model is defective, or you are doing something wrong.

    I trust Apple could develop a glucose monitor that works!
    Apple is very public with the information that their heart rate monitor may not be accurate on dark or tatoo'd skin.   A loose strap will also impact its accuracy.  Also, it may be accurate while weight lifting. 

    He may be hitting the limitations of the device.  But, I agree with you that he's probably doing something wrong.

    Another possibility is using a third party app that uses a different smoothing algorithm.  That is:   Say the device samples heart rate every second but the user's heart is 90bpm.   That means some seconds get 2 beats and some get 1.   Smoothing, if done properly cancels out that effect.  (It's also the reason why nurses when administering Digitalis are instructed to take heart rate for a full minute rather than 15 or 30 seconds.) 
  • Reply 30 of 59
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,697member
    Rayz2016 said:
    gatorguy said:

    BTW, Wareable.com is a great source for keeping up with the latest developments in smartwatches and similar tech. One of my go-to's. 
    Have you thought about making it one of your stay-there’s?
    You and others keep asking for me, so I wouldn't want to let you down. I'm sure your life already has enough disappointments.  :)
    avon b7JWSC
  • Reply 31 of 59
    frantisek said:
    Apple is working on this holly grail for long. And failed several times. When they succeed then as somebody said will "sell a helluva lot of watches!" And it will be hard to copycat that. Also because ReseachKit and other software connected to it.

    Failed? Gee, I didn't know Apple already released a glucose monitor to the public that didn't work properly, and thus failed.
    Yes, failed as they wanted to have one several years ago already. But have not managed to make one that would pass their quality standard.
  • Reply 32 of 59
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 4,660member
    melgross said:

    I’m skeptical Apple will be the first to bring this to market. Wouldn’t it need FDA approval? Seems to me it would start in the medical devices community and once proven to work Apple could bring it to the masses.
    No more so that a heart rate monitor. It’s non invasive, and as long as Apple, or anyone, isn’t selling this as a medical device, it’s fine. But Apple has had ongoing talks with the FDA for several years, so we don’t how far all of that is going.
    I think it's the FDA rather than Apple who decides if it is a medical device.

    The medical device industry makes sure of that.   They want to keep their 1,000% markups.
    JWSC
  • Reply 33 of 59
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,180member
    Clickbait Headline: “Apple Battles Islam!”
  • Reply 34 of 59
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Of course you know what will happen if Apple actually does this. If anyone who goes into hyper (or hypo) glycemic shock was using an Apple Watch to monitor their levels, there will be calls up to and including shutting Apple down as a company. Because it doesn’t matter how revolutionary the tech is when there’s a payday to be had by suing the creator.

    Mysteriously, all the stories of people following their GPS to their doom (or into a lake) will be swept under the rug…
    GeorgeBMacanton zuykovpalomine
  • Reply 35 of 59
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,826member
    avon b7 said:
    This would be a literally life changing advance if it can be made reliable. Something that has so far resisted all attempts to crack this particular nut.

    Reliable non-invasive constant glucose monitoring would be Nobel worthy.
    I wouldnt go that far after all there is nothing new here.  That is the spectrascope is a well known tool.  Apple achievement would be in getting it to work over a wide array of subjects.  

    Now dont get me wrong here; as a diabetic such a watch would lead me to becoming an Apple watch customer.   Im not really a big fan of watches but as the disease progresses such monitoring would be very useful.   The doctors already would live to see testing 6 times a day and that is a little much with traditional methods.  
  • Reply 36 of 59
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,727member
    deminsd said:
    melgross said:
    deminsd said:
    Reliability is key if we are to trust the readings.  So far, the AW heart rate monitor hasn't proven to be reliable enough for me and that should be relatively simple.  

    Is there any possibility this will be in the AW4, or is it too early?
    You’re wrong about that. I don’t know what your comparison is from. Mine is extremely accurate. When I was in the hospital, after getting a warning about high heart rate from my watch, which was correct, I found that mine matched the hospital’s equipment that I was connected to by plus or minus one point. This was for 4 days at first, then when I went back, for another week and a half.

    while I can’t say what you’re doing, I’ve found that people who do complain to me about it are wearing their watches too loosely. Another thing which plagues certified medical equipment, as told to me by a doctor, is that occasionally, the measurement coincides with the rise, or fall, of the heartbeat, resulting in a momentary high, or low count, or apparent dropout of a reading.
    I said RELIABLE, not ACCURATE.  I've noticed mine does not reliably give me an accurate reading every time.  Most of the time, it does.  But I monitor my HR on my watch during my daily activity (workout).  MOST OF THE TIME, it shows me readings that I would predict at that point in my activity based on historical readings.  Other times, it shows my HR at rest levels during higher cardio activity.  NOT ALWAYS, but sometimes.  Sometimes, it shows my heart rate at a too high of a rate during activity (I take the same route every morning), and I watch it and can literally see the rate tank over a period of 15 seconds down to what is normal for that time in my workout.  That's what I mean by reliable.  Other times, the HR is blanked out completely for period of 30 seconds or so.  

    i keep my watch sensor surface clean and relatively tight (but not too tight) on my wrist.  


    I’ve never had that problem.
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 37 of 59
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,727member

    frantisek said:
    frantisek said:
    Apple is working on this holly grail for long. And failed several times. When they succeed then as somebody said will "sell a helluva lot of watches!" And it will be hard to copycat that. Also because ReseachKit and other software connected to it.

    Failed? Gee, I didn't know Apple already released a glucose monitor to the public that didn't work properly, and thus failed.
    Yes, failed as they wanted to have one several years ago already. But have not managed to make one that would pass their quality standard.
    And you have all of this inside information? No doubt they’ve been working on this for some time, but attempts to generate a product aren’t failures as they move up the learning curve.
  • Reply 38 of 59
    claire1claire1 Posts: 510unconfirmed, member
    This in Series 4 with smaller bezels +who knows what else they have coming would be a super-super cycle!!
  • Reply 39 of 59
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,727member

    melgross said:

    I’m skeptical Apple will be the first to bring this to market. Wouldn’t it need FDA approval? Seems to me it would start in the medical devices community and once proven to work Apple could bring it to the masses.
    No more so that a heart rate monitor. It’s non invasive, and as long as Apple, or anyone, isn’t selling this as a medical device, it’s fine. But Apple has had ongoing talks with the FDA for several years, so we don’t how far all of that is going.
    I think it's the FDA rather than Apple who decides if it is a medical device.

    The medical device industry makes sure of that.   They want to keep their 1,000% markups.
    There are specific categories of certification. Measuring something doesn’t automatically generate a response from the FDA. It depends on what is being done, and what is being claimed.

    this is the FDA page on consumer medical devices. Remember these are devices that may do harm, physically in some way, but in a minor way - Class 1 devices.

    https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ResourcesforYou/Consumers/default.htm#What_is_a_Medical_Device_

    a Watch measuring something that doesn’t have the potential for physical harm in the use of the device doesn’t classify as a class 1 device, the lowest category. And if Apple isn’t claiming specific medical results, it’s hard to see how the FDA would classify it as a medical device.
    edited August 2018
  • Reply 40 of 59
    glynhglynh Posts: 132member
    melgross said:
    You’re wrong about that. I don’t know what your comparison is from. Mine is extremely accurate. When I was in the hospital, after getting a warning about high heart rate from my watch, which was correct, I found that mine matched the hospital’s equipment that I was connected to by plus or minus one point. This was for 4 days at first, then when I went back, for another week and a half.
    I have had a couple of warnings from my watch this year for my heart rate being above 120bpm at rest but the second time I found myself in A&E with Atrial Fibrilliation going from 48-184bpm hooked up to monitors bleeping high and low all my Apple Watch done was tell the time!

    I could feel my heart rate going all over the place before I went into hospital but got no warning from my Watch despite the health app recording 47-165bpm during the same 60 second period...

    I was was also told by a nurse that my Watch readings were wildly different from the monitor I was hooked up to but I am convinced she said that because she was confused over which readings she should be looking at!

    But as an uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetic I would love for the Watch to become a Continuous Glucose Monitor as it would be life changing for me...
    edited August 2018
Sign In or Register to comment.