[jimrandomh]

This is yet another in a long line of glucose-measurement devices designed to sell to unsophisticated research grantmaking agencies, rather than to diabetics. Making a device that "measures" blood sugar in a watch form factor is easy, and many research groups have done so. Making one that's accurate enough to compete with the CGMs that are already on the market is a different matter entirely.

[mmooss]

What about this research indicates to you that it doesn't address the accuracy issue?

[morganherlocker]

> Shaker said. “No other technology can provide this level of precision without direct contact with the bloodstream.”

The existing alternatives do have access to the bloodstream.

[mmooss]

How does that indicate that they didn't address the accuracy of their technology, as the GGP claims?

> The existing alternatives do have access to the bloodstream.

So? Who says otherwise? People don't want invasive tests that have direct contact with their bloodstream.

[morganherlocker]

If you're type 1 diabetic, accuracy is paramount, especially in a closed loop insulin pump setup. Even with access to the bloodstream, existing CGMs leave plenty of room for improvement that would directly improve quality of life a lot more than the annoyance of applying the sensor under the skin.

[mmooss]

> accuracy is paramount

Who says that's not addressed by this technology?

> directly improve quality of life a lot more than the annoyance of applying the sensor under the skin

How annoying is it? They don't cut a hole and insert it. How can you say how much it would improve the quality of life?

I don't see where all these assumptions about this technology come from.