This comment is why as someone who works in the field of proteomics and metabolomics in relation to Alzheimer’s disease that I honestly think it’s shameful how you’re promoting these tests. “More” doesn’t mean better - you’re comparing clinical viable well research tests with bio markers we haven’t even sufficiently researched to make clinical statements about. Research medicine and clinical medicine aren’t at the same standard, we don’t disclose research results to participants for this reason - we don’t know enough about what those levels mean to actually tell someone how to interpret them.
We can explain with decades of research and clinical evidence what raised glucose or lipid profiles mean, we cannot do this with metabolomics because we literally do not know. We are just throwing darts in the dark and trying to work out what it all means. Even the papers you linked elsewhere were tiny trials on 20-30 people with vague outcomes. To suggest these results will be clinically relevant is laughable, it’s going to be a badly hashed AI with half complete data telling people vague results.
I spend millions on metabolomics on thousands of samples a year as we have a biobank of 300,000 samples from over 5,000 participants. I wouldn’t get this test because we can’t actually say what the results mean, that’s what we’re researching! Claiming you can interpret such a new field of research with an algorithm is honestly worrying. And I also agree with others that I fail to see what the benefit would be of getting these results 10+ times a year. They’re clinically irrelevant anyway. It’s fine if people are curious and understand we can’t really interpret the results but that’s not what your advertising. This is just some half hashed algorithm, we can’t interpret these the way you claim and you’re pushing the limits of what you can claim.
Krisblade220 karma
This comment is why as someone who works in the field of proteomics and metabolomics in relation to Alzheimer’s disease that I honestly think it’s shameful how you’re promoting these tests. “More” doesn’t mean better - you’re comparing clinical viable well research tests with bio markers we haven’t even sufficiently researched to make clinical statements about. Research medicine and clinical medicine aren’t at the same standard, we don’t disclose research results to participants for this reason - we don’t know enough about what those levels mean to actually tell someone how to interpret them.
We can explain with decades of research and clinical evidence what raised glucose or lipid profiles mean, we cannot do this with metabolomics because we literally do not know. We are just throwing darts in the dark and trying to work out what it all means. Even the papers you linked elsewhere were tiny trials on 20-30 people with vague outcomes. To suggest these results will be clinically relevant is laughable, it’s going to be a badly hashed AI with half complete data telling people vague results.
I spend millions on metabolomics on thousands of samples a year as we have a biobank of 300,000 samples from over 5,000 participants. I wouldn’t get this test because we can’t actually say what the results mean, that’s what we’re researching! Claiming you can interpret such a new field of research with an algorithm is honestly worrying. And I also agree with others that I fail to see what the benefit would be of getting these results 10+ times a year. They’re clinically irrelevant anyway. It’s fine if people are curious and understand we can’t really interpret the results but that’s not what your advertising. This is just some half hashed algorithm, we can’t interpret these the way you claim and you’re pushing the limits of what you can claim.
View HistoryShare Link