There are decades of research with all kinds of wild wearable devices in all kinds of form factors that can do amazing things. They have gone over like a lead balloon with the consumer.
Socially, it is acceptable to wear exactly one piece of technology on one wrist. People with very dangerous medical conditions might be convinced to wear a well hidden device under their clothes but it's a big ask and compliance won't be as high as you'd expect.
That's just how people are, so as engineers we have to make products to fit that.
It just can't look too unusual.
It makes it very hard for a business when, for instance, very few men are willing to wear your bangle or people can't wear your glucose monitoring hat inside nice restaurants.
It's likely that different wearable forms will become more common and accepted, but that is one of those predictions you hear every year for the last thirty years and it's true to an extent but also there is a long way to go.
Maybe one day it will be common for men to wear bangles on each arm, or for hat wearing to be common indoors via their actions.
For example, no one carried around headphones out-and-about before the Walkman.
"You are currently already by necessity accepting the monitoring of blood glucose invasively with device X, here is a less invasive device Y that sits under your lip, or perhaps has a fiberoptic cable running up to your lip. Would you switch to this lip-oriented device today? Or would you rather profusely refuse to use this device Y until some more distant unspecified future date where the technology Z finally robustly works through thicker layers of skin while continuing to use the more invasive device X?"
I don't claim but tend to believe they would take improvement Y over X while waiting for Z.
You actually claim they wouldn't.
I say let the patients speak for themselves.
Perhaps your claim is correct and no suitably large niche of patients would switch to the lip-oriented device.
Perhaps you are wrong and you have confirmed my suspicion of the miscommunication between patients and engineers.
Your rebuttal does not prove compliance of a less invasive lip oriented device would be lower than current invasive devices.
There is a lot (a lot) of history here that I think would help you test your assumptions on this.
A 2017 survey found only 32% of the US population wears a watch daily, so for a large fraction wearing a glucose monitor in the form of a watch would also constitute a change, and correlate with diabetes patients. Under the lip or monitoring the inside of the cheeks, etc may be even less conspicuous than wearing a watch. Perhaps you might wish to test your assumptions too, and again, neither me nor you should be the arbiters in this matter: the patients ought to be the ultimate arbiters.
https://www.jckonline.com/editorial-article/most-consumers-d...
I don't understand why a person would contort themselves into less defensible or self-contradictory stances. It would seem engineers or others involved in the field would welcome the suggestion that perhaps there is a more tractable way, that might simultaneously be more acceptable by the patients themselves.
Observe I don't accuse you of causing the miscommunication. Everyone is prone to following the herd, including me.
While it isn't proven the patients would prefer a miniaturized device under the lips (or somehow reversibly attached to a teeth in a way that it doesn't interfere with eating, kissing, etc..) let us suppose for a moment that it actually turned out to be the case, after a survey or after actual trials.
In this case it's not the fault of the average employee or engineer in the field that they were designing thick-skin CGM devices before the survey or trials were done.
The real question in that case is: who was or wasn't aware before the survey that the red mucous membranes were easier? If not why not? It's obvious these tissues are redder due to better visibility of blood. Those that were aware before the eventual survey: did they yes or no tell their superiors? why not? if they did, they are absolved, but the line of questioning now transfers to the superior. Why didn't they order a survey asking for patients concerns about the idea, and if they would consider switching to such a product if properly executed? Why didn't they consult the patients?
I can't prove it, but I think it actually makes a lot of sense. The interstitial CGMs like Libre/Dexcom are invasive (brief pinch on application) but they last up to 2 weeks and you can set and forget. I'd think any other non-invasive device that requires carrying it around, running wires, and being even a little pro-active would lose on convenience alone.
You could get some traction I'm sure, but the majority of people are going to gravitate towards the easiest solution, and applying a patch once every 10-14 days is pretty darn easy. Even if Apple could check glucose I'd still prefer a CGM patch so I don't have worry about always wearing the watch.
The reason it's your comment I'm replying to is because you indicate you actually worked in this field.
Whenever these discussions surrounding noninvasive monitoring of blood solute concentrations come up I keep wondering why anyone is surprised taking a hard route is hard, and why there seems little attention to seeking easier routes of noninvasive optical sensing.
Please do shoot my comment if it is nonsensical, so that I can stop caring next time I read such a discussion, but I would like a mechanistic explanation why the lips wouldn't be easier.
From an a priori perspective, it would certainly be desirable to have any type of noninvasive monitoring in the form factor of a watch. There is nothing wrong with dreams or hope. Yet to me it sounds like a dream was interpreted too literally: starting from some hypothetical dreamer exclaiming "imagine testing concentration X or Y, but noninvasively! sure wearing a device would may come with some inconveniences, but if the advantages outweigh the inconveniences, it would find a niche" and "after all people have been wearing watches too".
An idea that started as an analogy: just like a personal wearable watch had advantages compared to an immobile pendulum clock, perhaps we can devise the analogous personal wearable device that performs the duties of some large inconvenient measuring setup, workflow, discipline,....
I can't shake the feeling that the analogy has been taken too literally, as if the original dream insists the blood glucose meter has to be integrated into the watch and located on the same or similar place on the body...
Blood is red.
Lips are red.
The color of the lips is the color of the blood.
Acknowledging the inconvenience of mounting a device or perhaps an optical fiber to your lips, it may constitute a more tractable milestone.
What is the reason all the 'failed' startups avoid the lips and make life hard on themselves by choosing to do spectroscopy (in the widest sense: plain, Raman, ...) through the highly variable noisy medium of skin (different pigmentations by genetics, different pigmentations by varying exposure to sun within an identical individual, different states of skin like sweating, the intinsic noise incurred by imaging through a robustly thick layer of skin, scattering like mist, ...).
It almost looks like attempting an artificially troubling tour de fource, akin to painting a masterpiece... with your toes. I think its possible eventually, fundamentally speaking, but it doesn't sound like a wise choice to make, at least not initially.
(I wrote failed in quotes, because in reality after bankruptcy IP is transferred, experience was gained by employees, some of which end up at different companies in the same space, others end up in new disciplines where they gain a new applicable insight that nobody previously connected to blood glucose monitoring, etc...)
Then there's the social issue of the first iterations of the tools potentially working better for less pigmented skin...
**
I have some serious question marks surrounding the near-term viability of stem cell regrown organs.
As an unethical thought experiment consider freshly born twins, and removing their pancreas and putting each in a chamber where you would otherwise grow the artificial pancreas. How fast would you notice harmful levels of sugar purely from observation of the kept-alive pancreas? (without cheating and using knowledge of healthy blood sugar levels). If it would take many many experiments or very long durations to detect these problems (for glucose or otherwise), then one doesn't really have the engineering confidence of how long it would last, what the side effects are, ... i.e. blanket statements that stem cell derived organs will arrive earlier than affordable democratized noninvasive sensing could be true, could be false, but isn't proven by a blanket statement. The burden of proof doesn't lay with the reader.