Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 26, 2014, 10:52 AM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Glucose Sensing Likely Too Challenging to Include in First-Generation iWatch




Apple's iWatch has been rumored to include a glucose monitoring feature, but how that feature would be implemented is still unknown. One report from earlier this month indicated that a "Healthbook" app under development for iOS 8 will be able "to read glucose-related data," while another report has warned not to expect glucose sensing built directly into the initial iWatch. The two reports are not necessarily conflicting given the possibility of Healthbook interfacing somehow with third-party glucose-monitoring devices, but a new report from Network World argues that the technology is indeed too early in its development to be incorporated into a mainstream consumer device such as the iWatch.

Heisler points to C8 Mediasensors and its non-invasive continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device, the HG1-c, as an example of how this technology is still in its infancy. It's a relevant example as Apple has hired several research scientists and engineers from the now defunct company and is presumably using their knowledge to explore bringing CGM to the iWatch.

The HG1-c device relied on Raman spectroscopy to indirectly measure a person's blood glucose level. This technique shines light through the skin in order to excite blood glucose molecules and cause them to vibrate. An optic sensor then analyzes the amount of light reflected off these vibrating molecules and returns a reading that is used to calculate an approximate glucose level.

Though innovative, the technology has flaws that make it impractical for a wrist-worn device. The sensor unit was attached to a belt that was worn around the waist and required a large battery pack to operate. It also needed a gel to accurately measure light levels, which were influenced by ambient sunlight. This sunlight sensitivity was highlighted by former C8 employee Charles Martin, who spoke to Network World.
Quote:
Yes, the camera sensor had to be shrouded in darkness to function. You have to understand that Raman Spectroscopy is looking for a very faint signal emitted by the glucose molecules. A rough analogy: try to pick out someone's voice in a noisy room. The sunlight was this kind of noise that the camera sensor was not calibrated against. They did try to implement algorithms to discount measurements against sunlight anomalies, but some of the anomaly criteria these algorithms were supposed to detect, overlapped. This made things hard to verify and test on the device.
Apple likely can overcome many of these limitations, but it will take time to transform the technology to the point where it is reliable enough to be used as a diagnostic or monitoring device. Once Apple improves the technology, it will need to receive FDA approval, which is a painstaking process with extensive clinical trials and documentation.

If Apple goes down this route, it could take up to 18 months just to receive approval necessary to sell the device. Given this lengthy approval process and the fact that evidence of Apple earnestly assembling its iWatch biometric research team only started surfacing around early 2013, Heisler believes "the notion that this feature will appear in the first iteration of the device is highly improbable."

Instead of measuring glucose levels, the iWatch may allow users to monitor glucose levels by importing them from a glucose monitoring device or by manually entering them into the accompanying Healthbook app for iOS. Apple is rumored to be working on the health and fitness app, which uses a card-based interface to track vital health statistics such as heart rate, weight and step count.

Article Link: Glucose Sensing Likely Too Challenging to Include in First-Generation iWatch
MacRumors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2014, 10:59 AM   #2
chrmjenkins
macrumors 603
 
chrmjenkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: CA
Interesting territory as it would potentially open them up to medical liability. Tread lightly.
__________________
Twitter: @anexanhume
chrmjenkins is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2014, 11:04 AM   #3
DZakDad
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Lots of hurdles

Any device that measured glucose levels would have to get government approvals in any country that it was sold in. There are also different units of measurement used, depending on the country you're in. Think metric vs. non-metric. Recent law changes required that glucometers must be hard coded to the units used in the selling country. This would mean different SKU's.

You're in an entirely new world when you've got a device that could make a person take potentially fatal actions - taking insulin or not. Potentially a huge, huge liability for Apple should somebody die.

Non-invasive glucose monitoring has a lot of hurdles to get through before it'd be reliable.

As a diabetic myself, this could be useful but I'm not holding my breath.
DZakDad is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2014, 11:06 AM   #4
DShap5
macrumors 6502a
 
DShap5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: California
That dude looks comfortable.
__________________
If you want a cool new feature on a Samsung phone, just suggest it to Apple.
DShap5 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2014, 11:07 AM   #5
IJ Reilly
macrumors P6
 
IJ Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Palookaville
Yet again we see the problem of being obsessed with the "watch" concept, especially when all the evidence points towards Apple being interested in the much broader category of wearable tech. This would likely take the form of a family of products, of which a "watch" is the least likely and certainly the least interesting.
__________________
*The season starts too early and finishes too late and there are too many games in between.
Bill Veeck
IJ Reilly is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2014, 11:08 AM   #6
Rocketman
macrumors 603
 
Rocketman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Claremont, CA
The whole thing with iWatch is an accessory to your iPhone. One would obviously think someone with a Glucose monitoring (or other) requirement could wear yet another "sidecar" accessory clipped over the pant line inside against the skin. No problem.

Rocketman
__________________
Think Different-ly!
All 357 R or D House jobs bills over 4 years died in the D Senate, ordered by the D President. Buy a model rocket here: http://v-serv.com/usr/instaship-visual.htm Thanks.
Rocketman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2014, 11:10 AM   #7
Old Muley
macrumors 6502a
 
Old Muley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Titletown USA
They should just invent some kind of implantable iDevice and be done with it.
__________________
"Using the potty is an expectation for everyone." -Nurse Beining
www.musicboomerang.com
Old Muley is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2014, 11:11 AM   #8
Robert.Walter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
While I'm really happy this technology exists, I really feel sorry for the folks that have to deal with such issues (even more so for those w/o the tech to help them.)

Hopefully one day, all this monitoring will lead to a breakthrough in prevention or cure!
Robert.Walter is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2014, 11:11 AM   #9
RoccoFan
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Really?

This thing is beginning to sound more and more like the Galaxy S 4. All I'm reading about are a bunch of functions that maybe 5% of the population will actually care to use on a regular basis.

This whole iWatch thing is BS. Just make a wider iPhone and put out an iOS version that doesn't crash my iPad and let's move on.

Last edited by RoccoFan; Feb 26, 2014 at 06:41 PM. Reason: May > maybe
RoccoFan is offline   10 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2014, 11:13 AM   #10
JimmyMac
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis
Dexcom could talk to the iWatch?

Dexcom is a CGM company and is already partnering with insulin pump companies to develop pumps to read BG readings from the Dexcom transmitter / sensor. It would be slick and very easy for a watch device to talk to the Dexcom sensor / transmitter like an insulin pump can.

I would leave the CGM research and development to the CGM experts. And the Dexcom sensor is so accurate and stupid easy, it can only be explained as magic, BTW. It would be awesome if Apple worked with them to develop the iWatch to talk to the Dexcom transmitter / sensor. I'd buy that in a heartbeat!
JimmyMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2014, 11:13 AM   #11
OS X Dude
macrumors 6502a
 
OS X Dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Midlands, UK
My grandad was a Type-1 diabetic, so this was interesting to read.

As I understand it, clinical trials on dogs (wrong, but that's another story) for a series of injections to 'cure' the disease and all associated symptoms for around four years were well underway. Whether I've got parts of that muddled, I don't know, but I remember telling my grandad about it a few months ago.

Funny to think there'd potentially be a 'cure' of sorts released before this was both feasible and certified. Great if they could get it working, however.

EDIT: The animals were themselves diabetic, I think they'd done tests on some other animal and were planning on treating dogs next.
__________________
Self-designed and custom-built Manson 'Android'
Fender Jaguar HH
PRS Bernie Marsden Singlecut
H&K TubeMeister 18 Head
OS X Dude is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2014, 11:17 AM   #12
Piggie
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
I may be wrong but the whole health aspect of the so called iPhone I can see as a dead end.

Whilst health is all good, in reality it's not the mass market that's needed, unless it's just another toy for Apple to play with like the Apple TV.

Whilst there are groups of people into this, it's not the vast country wide majority who are turned on by the whole health concept.

By all means have these features as a bonus, but it's not going to be mass market in the same way a phone is, it's is total focus is health
__________________
Amiga 500, N64, Dreamcast, Gamecube, Xbox360 Slim 250GB, PS3, Nokia 6210, 3 Home Made PC's, Adidas Watch, Nikon + Fuji Cameras, 32GB iPad, Furry Pigs (mainly pink!)
Piggie is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2014, 11:17 AM   #13
DZakDad
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocketman View Post
The whole thing with iWatch is an accessory to your iPhone. One would obviously think someone with a Glucose monitoring (or other) requirement could wear yet another "sidecar" accessory clipped over the pant line inside against the skin. No problem.

Rocketman
There are devices like this already. A continual glucose monitoring system is often used with an insulin pump. The sensor is inserted under the skin and measures the glucose in the bodily fluid - not in the blood. Blood monitoring is much more accurate - hence finger prick testing. The sensors are generally good for 3-7 days and then must be changed. They are also quite expensive. The one I use costs about $70/sensor. The sensor transmits to my insulin pump and allows me to see the trend of my blood sugar levels.

Non-invasive monitoring would be a blessing. Between glucose sensors and insulin pump devices I'm heading towards Borg status. While giving me better monitoring of my innards it's not a "no problem" scenario yet.
DZakDad is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2014, 11:34 AM   #14
OAK77uk
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Glucose Sensing Likely Too Challenging to Include in First-Generation iWatch

Looks like the first rung on the ladder to total control & robotism!
Sure it's what the world's looking for but not me I'm afraid.
http://cdn.macrumors.com/vb/images/smilies/eek.gif
OAK77uk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2014, 11:37 AM   #15
Rogifan
macrumors G3
 
Rogifan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by IJ Reilly View Post
Yet again we see the problem of being obsessed with the "watch" concept, especially when all the evidence points towards Apple being interested in the much broader category of wearable tech. This would likely take the form of a family of products, of which a "watch" is the least likely and certainly the least interesting.
But Samsung has a watch and rumors are Google is doing one so of course Apple has to do one too. /s
__________________
"I have a very optimistic view of individuals. As individuals, people are inherently good. I have a somewhat more pessimistic view of people in groups." -- Steve Jobs , Wired interview
Rogifan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2014, 11:37 AM   #16
currentinterest
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
If I recall, a few months ago Apple applied for a patent for a wrist glucose monitoring device. The market is not people with diabetes who need very accurate glucose levels, but people who want to avoid becoming diabetic. For the later, simple glucose range indicators is enough. One would primarily eat less sugar containing foods to change it.
currentinterest is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2014, 11:41 AM   #17
Rogifan
macrumors G3
 
Rogifan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piggie View Post
I may be wrong but the whole health aspect of the so called iPhone I can see as a dead end.

Whilst health is all good, in reality it's not the mass market that's needed, unless it's just another toy for Apple to play with like the Apple TV.

Whilst there are groups of people into this, it's not the vast country wide majority who are turned on by the whole health concept.

By all means have these features as a bonus, but it's not going to be mass market in the same way a phone is, it's is total focus is health
What is mass market that's needed? Certainly not the current crop of so-called "smart watches". I'd love to see Apple go in a different direction.
__________________
"I have a very optimistic view of individuals. As individuals, people are inherently good. I have a somewhat more pessimistic view of people in groups." -- Steve Jobs , Wired interview
Rogifan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2014, 11:45 AM   #18
charlituna
macrumors 604
 
charlituna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by IJ Reilly View Post
Yet again we see the problem of being obsessed with the "watch" concept, especially when all the evidence points towards Apple being interested in the much broader category of wearable tech. This would likely take the form of a family of products, of which a "watch" is the least likely and certainly the least interesting.
I rather agree with this. I suspect that Apple's talks with the FDA were more about what is required for a health device to actually release, in order to know what paperwork to ask for before allowing such a device to be MFi. After all Apple wouldn't want to put their endorsement on a a device that wasn't an authorized health device.

I like the idea of the healthbook even if just connecting to outside devices.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
But Samsung has a watch and rumors are Google is doing one so of course Apple has to do one too. /s
But which came first the chicken or

oh sorry wrong joke. i mean the rumors of the watch or the watch.
charlituna is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2014, 11:49 AM   #19
vsighi
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
WOOW dude this is a grate innovation but If I was Apple I think I will invent a bigger screen iPhone
__________________
15" rMBP Mid 2012 @ 2.6/8/512
2 X iPad 3 64Gb - WI-FI
iPhone 5 32Gb TV
HTC ONE 64Gb
vsighi is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2014, 12:01 PM   #20
unplugme71
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2011
I'm all up for a healthbook app that integrates with iCloud, iDevices, Apple TV w/ potential for camera and fitness apps, iWatch and activity trackers, a meal/nutrition integration, etc.
unplugme71 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2014, 12:02 PM   #21
T-Will
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
If only Apple had experience shrinking down bulky technology...



T-Will is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2014, 12:11 PM   #22
theOtherGeoff
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by DZakDad View Post
Any device that measured glucose levels would have to get government approvals in any country that it was sold in. There are also different units of measurement used, depending on the country you're in. Think metric vs. non-metric. Recent law changes required that glucometers must be hard coded to the units used in the selling country. This would mean different SKU's.

You're in an entirely new world when you've got a device that could make a person take potentially fatal actions - taking insulin or not. Potentially a huge, huge liability for Apple should somebody die.

Non-invasive glucose monitoring has a lot of hurdles to get through before it'd be reliable.

As a diabetic myself, this could be useful but I'm not holding my breath.
Even if not diagnostically accurate, if the 'false negatives' are within clinical norms (It may overreact, but rarely under react), it may be a good first step for early warning.... (read: all use procedures will read "prior to action, confirm your BGL with your FDA approved and MD prescribed device").

But in general, it will take at least one generation of 'wearable' BGM (noninvasive) with FDA approval to drive this down into the 'general computing platform' (which the iWatch is).

Until then, if Apple can deliver an App platform for analysis/communications (reliable BT and notifications, and alerting), then I see them building the framework for that, and inviting 3rd Party Med device makers build the device and the app for the iOS platform. And stay out of the FDA fray, and just design the iWatch for 'non-diagnostic, advisory' purposes.'

Why is that? Because if insurance pays for the monitoring, and the payment of the monitoring is through your AppleID, That's like printing money without the risk (a $19.99 app and then say $5/month to remotely monitor equals 25 bucks the first year, and 18 bucks a year after that... multiply by... a couple billion people who either have chronic HyT, Cardiac, or endocrine issues that would reduce net costs if monitored properly continually).

That's why the device is less important ,and the transport (which from an FDA/HIPAA perspective is a lot simpler to standardize,even across regulatory geographies), is easier to build out.

This all goes to the end game model of Apple building the appliance that you have, and building the infrastructure for others to ride on (AppleID, App Store, TouchID/security, Passbook (think HSA cards or Insurance accounts as payment for this)).

Whether it be a picture of a skin lesion on your leg you want to send to your Derm MD (saving a 1/2 day drive and part of $130 office visit to be told it's a benign keratosi), or an upload of your sleep pattern to your sleep apnea tech to verify adjustments to your CPAP, or your week's history of BP to your Cardiologist for checking the dosing of a new med, all of this will require a secure data transport.

Apple is in the lead on this, as they control the hardware and the encryption/transport (hence the TLS bug being so bad)... few others have that, and none at the scale. And Apple's model of 1 to 4 new devices a year, makes FDA validation of applications a lot easier (Validated systems are a pain. validating on 300 android devices would be impossible... 2 iPad and 2 iPhone devices and 1 new major OS, Not so much), makes them an early leader in 'consumer grade' diagnostic apps.

And Apple, like BioTechs and Pharma, are comfortable with the long view. Let the technology mature... and any promising great tech can be acquired-bought-into early (BioTech is almost all based on M&A cashouts), and implemented when the medical world is ready. Remember, your MD has to accept both the technology, and the new diagnostic paradigm of continuous outpatient monitoring - most MDs can't handle 'big data' - it will take a generation of research, follow-up, and then med school curriculum upgrades adopting these as 'promising new technologies' before MDs (and more imporantly in the US, Insurance companies) start modifying their practice to encorporate them into their diagnostic/pricing model.

Last edited by theOtherGeoff; Feb 26, 2014 at 12:22 PM.
theOtherGeoff is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2014, 12:12 PM   #23
Apple Key
macrumors 6502a
 
Apple Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piggie View Post
I may be wrong but the whole health aspect of the so called iPhone I can see as a dead end.

Whilst health is all good, in reality it's not the mass market that's needed, unless it's just another toy for Apple to play with like the Apple TV.

Whilst there are groups of people into this, it's not the vast country wide majority who are turned on by the whole health concept.

By all means have these features as a bonus, but it's not going to be mass market in the same way a phone is, it's is total focus is health
I think it really depends on the features. I have no idea what they have planned, but if they could theoretically have the following features (which would be extremely difficult and even more difficult to be accurate enough to be useful), I would buy one in a second:

24-hour heart rate monitoring
Blood pressure monitoring
Oxygen level
calories burned
calorie intake

Why not throw in temperature too. It could tell you right away if your temperature was lower or higher than typically is normal for you.
__________________
You know what they say... once you go Mac you ain't never gonna go back.
Apple Key is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2014, 12:15 PM   #24
sransari
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
I like the idea of importing glucose level information from a stand-alone glucose meter. CGM technology is really inaccurate and unreliable at this stage, and I don't see the value in importing inaccurate and unreliable data, via CGM device, in to a healthbook app. crap in is crap out, thats what i always say!
__________________
2008 MacPro 8-core, 2.8 GHz, 32 GB RAM, 250 GB SSD
2011 Macbook Air 1.2 GHz i5
2012 Macbook Pro Retina 2.3 GHz i7
iPad 4th Gen Retina, iFone 5S
sransari is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2014, 12:31 PM   #25
theOtherGeoff
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by DZakDad View Post
Non-invasive monitoring would be a blessing. Between glucose sensors and insulin pump devices I'm heading towards Borg status. While giving me better monitoring of my innards it's not a "no problem" scenario yet.
Well 'The Collective' already tracks where you are, what you buy for food, when you sleep, when you wake up (smart grid electrical), when you talk to people, which direction you're moving, what roads your car is driving.

Resistance is futile... you are being assimiliated;-).

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by sransari View Post
I like the idea of importing glucose level information from a stand-alone glucose meter. CGM technology is really inaccurate and unreliable at this stage, and I don't see the value in importing inaccurate and unreliable data, via CGM device, in to a healthbook app. crap in is crap out, thats what i always say!
until fuzzy logic cleans up the mess. your cameras now focus based on years of looking at how cameras 'jiggle' (and really that's how the Hubble was refocused).
If the hardware is 'consistently' inaccurate, progress can be made.

As I stated, once the innaccuracies can be quantified and potentially adjusted and sighted in, then these become reasonable consumer grade advisories, and will likely provide good trend analysis, and drive for better 2nd generation devices.
theOtherGeoff is offline   1 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iWatch Rumored to Include UV Light Exposure Sensor MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 55 Apr 9, 2014 12:21 AM
Apple's 'iWatch' Planned to Launch 'As Soon As This Year', Could Include Biosensors and Mapping Features MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 108 Mar 6, 2013 03:47 PM
New Photos of Claimed Next-Generation iPhone Parts Include Display Shield MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 207 Aug 10, 2012 10:02 AM
Apple Television Set to Include Motion Sensing Control and Touchscreen Remote? MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 83 Jun 11, 2012 09:23 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:32 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC