> A breathalyser or toilet can sample you twice a day. That can feed into a risk analysis that pushes you onto blood screening (again, largely automated chem detection, only nursing support required). If you're still setting off alarms at that point, you go to the specialist.
The long term, personalised health view behind this is what's interesting to me.
Medicine has a lot of wide-windows of what's normal for "people", but often the first signs of an underlying issue is that something that was normal for you at one end of a window begins to move, or change, in ways it hasn't before.
One sample of a blood test might tell you "that level is a little lower than average, but still not low enough we'd worry". But the historical knowledge that "I've actually always tended to be on the higher side of average for that measurement" changes the picture drastically.
Like you say, when it comes to looking at false positives of new tools like this, sure, a tool may be useless at giving you a one time 100% accurate reading, but if you can watch the trend of it over time that may be valuable.
The long term, personalised health view behind this is what's interesting to me.
Medicine has a lot of wide-windows of what's normal for "people", but often the first signs of an underlying issue is that something that was normal for you at one end of a window begins to move, or change, in ways it hasn't before.
One sample of a blood test might tell you "that level is a little lower than average, but still not low enough we'd worry". But the historical knowledge that "I've actually always tended to be on the higher side of average for that measurement" changes the picture drastically.
Like you say, when it comes to looking at false positives of new tools like this, sure, a tool may be useless at giving you a one time 100% accurate reading, but if you can watch the trend of it over time that may be valuable.