I feel like I keep seeing these as science fair wins and innovation award wins, but where are they in real life? Are they making it to (the biomedical equivalent of) prod?
So you send your urine test results to the "cloud". Now the Google engineers will know whether you are going to die even before your doctor does. That's just great.
How well known is James Dyson in the US?<p>The reason I ask is that in the UK he is quite a polarising figure, with many people hating on him because he is a Brexiteer with all of his manufacturing now moved out of the UK to the Far East. Plus the products are not liked by all with some daring to say his vacuum cleaners are heavy, expensive and lacking in durability. Others insist on a Dyson product and won't settle for anything less.<p>Therefore, in the UK, winning an award with his name on it is not going to universally impress people. Plus the prize money is not that great in business terms.<p>So, how is James Dyson regarded internationally?
This is really interesting, reading more deeply into it, it sounds like it's been known for a while that there are metabolites that can be used to detect cancer (and the reserach seems to indicate that's true for lots of different cancers), and it seems this person is gaining time to market by simply proving the test works through observation rather than understanding which metabolites are present for which reasons - which is a more traditional approach others are taking. I don't know why they're talking about pepole having their own machine or processing the results in the cloud though. It seems like the underlying test - a few sensors exposed to a urine sample is something you could provide in a thousand different ways (test via mail, routine tests during doctors check ups) without waving yours and going "WooooOOoOOoo Clloooudddd" - although maybe that's the sort of thing you need to do to impress Dyson.
Many in this thread are saying there's no need to upload this information to the cloud because the transform can be performed locally on modern hardware, but that puts significant pressure on the business case. A model in the cloud is protected. Stored locally, that same model is potential shareware. If you're seeking to maximize the number of true positive diagnoses, then a viable business with low marginal costs is a better bet than an open, stagnant research model. Further, as others have noted, this information may already be stored widely in other clouds due to patient post-diagnosis search and browsing activity. Thus, adding another surface is only a linear change to the patient's privacy. Put simply, the incremental privacy change to the end user here may be worth it.
The section about the sustainability winner completely ignores climate change. Mind boggling.<p>> The problem: Fossil fuels continue to account for over 81% of global energy product according to the International Energy Agency. It is estimated that, if we continue to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, global supplies of gas and oil will deplete by 2060.
Hard pass on a cancer testing device that stores and processes my data on the company's server or their rented cloud storage.<p>This could be done locally with current phone or PC tech.<p>I know "cloud" and "AI" and "machine learning" are Pavlovian signals to venture capitalists, but come on.