Quote:
Originally Posted by Conductor71
Where has the comprehensive approach approach gotten us? In over 40 years of research, Sinemet despite its downfalls is still our only really proven treatment. We still have no common measuring point to develop blood or cerebro spinal fluid tests. When Andy Grove got involved in funding PD research, he made the key observation that never before had he seen people work so hard and achieve so little.
Andy Grove's Last Stand.
What Little is envisioning is revolutionary. He, along with Brin and Grove, are taking the medical research industry to the next level. They recognize we have a model that excels in generating a lot of info and data but scarcely makes anything of it. When does anyone and step back and say why no real progress? Andy Grove is doing just that at UCSF; they designed the virus vector after studying the Amgen records within five years of their aborted trials. That is being used in the Ceregene trials and will be used in the NIH GDNF trials. These guys, along with MJFF, are the only reason we seem to be making any progress.
I think Little's research is huge; if it pans out, we have one element that links us all, so we finally have that much desired point of measure to use in both diagnosis and tracking progression. Soccertese, you are right. Much literature already exists on vocal and speech changes in PD. From what i gather, Little is using that info and data, then using mathematical algorithms to make it useful. He essentially using what is already proven in many other studies and synthesizing it. How do you put that through phase trials? It either works, or it doesn't.
I do think the app development stuff a bit premature, but I don't think Little is being hyped. |
LAURA,
i gave an opinion on LITTLE, nothing in his background makes me think he can pull this off, and imho TED = hype, it's more about presenting IDEAS, not actual results. If you want the maximum attention you present at TED
and some of his TED presentation made no sense, for example:
"Current symptom tests are done in a clinic. They are expensive, time-consuming, and logistically difficult. So mostly, these tests are not done outside clinical trials".
THESE TESTS ARE EXPENSIVE AND TIME CONSUMING? WHAT TESTS? granted, many pd'ers get tested to rule out other problems, often given an MRI but even if this voice test detected PD you still have to see a doctor to verify it.
" In collaboration with one of my students, I worked for several years and now have algorithms that, in the lab, reach around 99 percent accuracy in detecting the disease. We also know how to predict the severity of symptoms to within a few percentage points of clinical judgment."
I'D LIKE TO SEE THE RESEARCH ON THIS. THIS WAS LIKELY DONE IN A CONTROLLED LAB SETTING.
http://www.maxlittle.net/publication...hort_07-11.pdf
I am not attacking the concept. I also realize just how difficult it will be to pull this off, imagine if the software has a bug in it and pd'ers are told they don't have pd and vice versa, so this is going to require A LOT OF TESTING. if you were a healthy individual and were told this test had a 90% chance you might develop pd, would you even take it? And even though the FDA doesn't regulate software apps as medical devices yet, they will and that's not an easy approval.
imagine the can of worms that will open up if you called in, took the test, were told you may have pd or a high probability of developing PD and your're 25. that shouldn't stop anyone from trying to do this but i kind of see this voice test as better done in the doctor's office for initial diagnosis and then done by the patient to track their progression. i don't know about you but when my pd diagnosis was traumatic.
think about tracking progression. i can sound perfectly normal during the day and have the typical pd voice when my med's wear off. so even that isn't a simple proposition.
http://www.maxlittle.net/publication...00887-2011.pdf
This paper had 43 patients and didn't provide a table of each patient's results.
so unless they have done a tremendous amount of work since then, i'd say they are in the VERY EARLY STAGES of development and god help us if every pd researcher hyped their work as much.
Sorry if i'm being overly argumentative and/or critical. I certainly don't want to turn this into a debate about pd research, and again, just criticizing the self-promotion of this guy, he ain't working on a cure.