Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by manmal 3220 days ago
Sure, but why not defer the test until a viable treatment is invented?
2 comments

Many people are interested to know the status of their brain health -- the same way as they can have health screen for other organs -- and they are interested to be able to track the status of their brain tissue over time to see whether a lifestyle modification they tried actually did have a beneficial effect on the brain or not.

Arguably, there will be no viable treatment unless asymptomatic volunteers get tested with our software so they can enroll in a clinical trail, so why defer the test?

Many people? I have absolutely no data whatsoever, but I would have estimated this group of people making up 0.1% of the population or less. Do you know many people who are so interested in their brain that they will take this test without having a known risk of Alzheimer's?
I have no known risk, but I could see taking it, just to check.
You might need to know about progression in the early stages to come up with a treatment plan.
However, three tests spaced out in 1 month intervals might be enough to measure progression whenever treatment becomes available. I'm not really sold on the idea that measuring this now is relevant or helpful. It's quite iffy.
A treatment plan for a currently incurable disease? The only treatments currently available (exercise, better lifestyle, etc) has minimal effects, there is nothing that deterministically makes a material difference in the progress of the disease.
If disease progression can be observed then a treatment plan can be devised. Till now there has been a big problem making a hypothesis since early detection has been hard.
A treatment plan that consists of what exactly? None of the treatments make very much difference at all. A treatment plan filled with basically useless treatments isn't much of a treatment plan.
Based on anything discovered with the patients found with the test. I imagine a 15 year followup will reveal something.
Exactly.