[jhbadger]

>It certainly seems like a plausible argument that better detectors leads to a smaller necessary sample.

But there is a limit to how small a sample can be regardless of the quality of the detectors because what you are looking for has to be in the sample. If the sample is merely a pinprick of blood, as Theranos (at least originally) claimed was enough, it very well might not be.

[HWR_14]

Sure. As a non-expert, I assume most drops of my blood have enough stuff in them to detect. How much can vitamin levels or viral loads change between drops of blood? Certainly they seem to draw more than strictly needed.

[jhbadger]

It depends on what you are looking for. Yes, for say small molecules like vitamins a pinprick (less than a microliter) could theoretically be enough. But if you are looking for things like early infection or cancer, the signals you want may not actually be in such a small sample at all.