I‘m not aware of any accurate noninvasive device on the market. Recently there‘s been an influx of fake watches that claim to do so, but they mostly make up the values. The linked article mentions that research is ongoing - can you point me where such a device is being sold?

I'm not sure if the device is currently being sold since they need to get the approval for any medical devices. For results and accuracy please check their papers from several years back [1], [2]. I think may be you are right, for transparency they need to release all the accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of the non-invasive glucose detection device, and from the publication title it seems only sensitivity results are currently being published. Personally I have one patent pending on non invasive ECG anomaly detection that cover both arrhythmia and ischemia with comprehensive 99% accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, and high accuracy of non invasive detection technique is certainly achievable.

[1] Microwave Noninvasive Blood Glucose Monitoring Sensor: Penetration Depth and Sensitivity Analysis (2018)

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8428850

[2] Microwave noninvasive blood glucose monitoring sensor: Human clinical trial results (2017):

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8058721

In order to bring a CGM to market, in many areas of the world you need to perform a number of clinical trials, and a certain MARD upper bound has to be demonstrated. Also, during development certain ISO/IEC standards must be followed, which cover continuous medical & information risk assessment and mitigation. It’s usually a process of up to a few years even after you have a strong belief that it performs well enough.

Accurate enough for Type 1 diabetics?

I think a MARD of <= 14 would be required to be useful.

10% is what you really need to have excellent control

> accurately

Not nearly accurate enough to make insulin dosing decisions, which is all diabetics care about.

For the foreseeable future, non-invasive glucose monitors will be like the scales that measure your body fat through electrical impulses. A neat toy, but not actually useful for medical purposes.

> Not nearly accurate enough to make insulin dosing decisions, which is all diabetics care about

It might be all type-1 diabetics care about, but for the 90-95% of diabetics that are type-2 much less accuracy is needed.

Well, 25% of those type-2 diabetics take insulin, but yes, those that don't take insulin may be able to derive some value from a less accurate sensor.

I just don't know why you'd choose the less accurate thing when it's your health.

I think the non-invasive stuff makes the most sense for people who don't have diabetes yet. Nothing will be covered by insurance for them and the non-invasive tech might be cheaper, and it can nudge them to make healthier eating decisions.

This is enough for non-diabetics who are curious about their diet and looking for data on blood sugar through the day to adjust their diet.

Don't be too pessimistic regarding the accuracy of non-invasive screening technique, before you know it you will probably be using one of the solutions. This high accuracy digital diagnostic and biomarker problems are way much easier than the level 5 autonomous driving and AGI, and please don't let other people to tell you otherwise. Personally I think they (company/govt agency/research labs) should hire more reseachers and PhD in this field of bio medical engineering to accelerate the efforts for the benefit of humankind. Not surprisingly the medical doctors associations (I am looking at you American Heart Association - AHA) will be up in arms against automated diagnostics screening eventhough you have 99% accuracy or better because of their biased perceptions due to their job insecurities.

The fact that Apple has not gone for it yet tells a lot about the actual usability of such devices imho.