This is actually how existing diagnostic machines work generally - mix blood or plasma with a reagent, incubate at body temp for some time, measure how the light properties of the sample (color, turbidity, depends on the test) change over time. Some tests measure 1 point at the end of the test, some measure several and construct a non-linear function.
The interesting part is that they're building a machine that can get accurate results with low-cost off-the-shelf components. State-of-the-art systems typically cost somewhere between 50k and 500k, which may or may not include service agreements (they break down all the time - wet chemistry) and ongoing costs for supplies.
I imagine the main wins in this area would be:
- built with low-cost/commodity components (done)
- small physical size for transport (done)
-- systems come in a variety of sizes from bedside to the size of a small car, depending on where you want to run them (operating suite/doctor's office vs central lab) and the volume you need.
- expanded operating temperature and humidity
-- existing systems have fairly tight tolerances on humidity especially, all the systems I worked with had environmental sensors installed nearby.
- low-power enough to run on batteries or small generators easily in remote environments
That these women are working their way down the list is impressive and much needed. As mentioned in the article, reagents are available commercially so that part is relatively "solved," although depending on the test they can be quite expensive and have their own cold-storage and transport problems for remote areas. The other big problem is affordable control material to ensure the systems are still accurate, and calibration material to adjust system constants when they inevitably drift (same cost/storage/transport problems as reagents). Still though, I'm glad they're making progress.
It's a neat system, although I fear the major hurdles (in the early days at least) will be getting a license for a diagnostics lab with these equipments and doctors approving the test results.
Also worked in lab diagnostics for quite a while. You're correct about the process. I'd add that the only particularly expensive piece of hardware along the chain is the light detection at the end. Sure, you need high precision pumps to dispense reagents & sample accurately, but if you're not running at industrial scale, those aren't that hard to DIY. And, of course, some reagents will be expensive as you said.
On the machines we built, the reaction products bound to a light-emitting material and we used photomultiplier tubes to measure the light output at the end. I believe this is more sensitive than the occlusion/scattering methods in the article. The problem is that PMTs are pretty expensive to buy new and their calibration needs to be checked periodically.
I have wondered if it would be possible to make a cheaper version using large-area PIN diodes, or with lenses to collect as much light as possible. Never saw any research being done in this area though.
They took a very complex system (rockets) that was custom-made and had to be extremely reliable. And then they looked at every component and tried to re-engineer it to optimize for costs. And they have been hugely successful doing it.
Comments
This is actually how existing diagnostic machines work generally - mix blood or plasma with a reagent, incubate at body temp for some time, measure how the light properties of the sample (color, turbidity, depends on the test) change over time. Some tests measure 1 point at the end of the test, some measure several and construct a non-linear function.
The interesting part is that they're building a machine that can get accurate results with low-cost off-the-shelf components. State-of-the-art systems typically cost somewhere between 50k and 500k, which may or may not include service agreements (they break down all the time - wet chemistry) and ongoing costs for supplies.
I imagine the main wins in this area would be:
- built with low-cost/commodity components (done)
- small physical size for transport (done)
- expanded operating temperature and humidity - low-power enough to run on batteries or small generators easily in remote environmentsThat these women are working their way down the list is impressive and much needed. As mentioned in the article, reagents are available commercially so that part is relatively "solved," although depending on the test they can be quite expensive and have their own cold-storage and transport problems for remote areas. The other big problem is affordable control material to ensure the systems are still accurate, and calibration material to adjust system constants when they inevitably drift (same cost/storage/transport problems as reagents). Still though, I'm glad they're making progress.
I look forward to more!
Source: worked in lab diagnostics for a while
It's a neat system, although I fear the major hurdles (in the early days at least) will be getting a license for a diagnostics lab with these equipments and doctors approving the test results.
Also worked in lab diagnostics for quite a while. You're correct about the process. I'd add that the only particularly expensive piece of hardware along the chain is the light detection at the end. Sure, you need high precision pumps to dispense reagents & sample accurately, but if you're not running at industrial scale, those aren't that hard to DIY. And, of course, some reagents will be expensive as you said.
On the machines we built, the reaction products bound to a light-emitting material and we used photomultiplier tubes to measure the light output at the end. I believe this is more sensitive than the occlusion/scattering methods in the article. The problem is that PMTs are pretty expensive to buy new and their calibration needs to be checked periodically.
I have wondered if it would be possible to make a cheaper version using large-area PIN diodes, or with lenses to collect as much light as possible. Never saw any research being done in this area though.
SpaceX did the same thing.
They took a very complex system (rockets) that was custom-made and had to be extremely reliable. And then they looked at every component and tried to re-engineer it to optimize for costs. And they have been hugely successful doing it.