Am actual doctor. I think we're both closer to and further away from a Tricorder than you think.
Point of care ultrasound has been booming for the last 1-2 decades. There are now cell-phone sized wireless probes you can easily put in your pocket and do multiple diagnostic scans on the heart, lung, belly, etc with the caveat that you have to be adept at both obtaining and interpreting ultrasound images which certainly takes a lot of process.
There are devices about as big as 2-3 cell phones (think label maker or portable speaker sized) which can reliably run a whole panel of common blood tests including electrolytes, a blood gas, and hemoglobin on a 1-2mL blood sample in <5min. We also have dedicated point of care A1C devices, PT/INR devices, and probably some more I don't know about.
I don't think we'll ever have handheld xray/CT solely due to the significant radiation risk the operator would experience, even if the technology could be miniaturized.
I don't think handheld MRI will ever happen either. The power requirement alone for the magnet strength needed is immense, not to mention the dangers of the magnetic field in some random unsecured area and the length of normal scans makes a handheld device impractical.
I don't think we'll ever have "bloodless" comprehensive blood testing. There's only so much you can do with spectroscopy, and some things like electrolytes are in dramatically different concentrations between the cells and the blood so scanning through skin would likely dramatically alter readings.
TLDR we are actively miniaturizing some medical technologies. There are physics limitations in "handheld-izing " most non-ultrasound diagnostic imaging, and while we've certainly made great progress in point of care labs, I don't think we're going to get a device that can measure those things without a blood sample.
Just an aside, this question reminded me of an interview I watched with a former CIA agent speaking about how when he worked overseas he varied his routine randomly every day. Woke up, left the house at different times, drove different routes to work, etc to avoid being targeted. He had a colleague from a different nation who regularly accused him of being paranoid. Then his colleague got assassinated.
US Physician here. The efforts I place into keeping a patient with capacity in the hospital vary directly to the concern I have about their pathology. There is a very real subset of people who have capacity, i.e. have the mental faculties about them that I cannot legally or ethically place them under a medical hold for treatment, who clearly do not comprehend the gravity of their situation or the likelihood they will die if they leave. I have unfortunately seen a number of patients who require significant amounts of supplemental oxygen, IV medications to support their blood pressure, life-threatening infections requiring IV antibiotics, etc, who for whatever reason decide they don't want to be in the hospital anymore. Discontinuation of this life support puts their life at near-immediate risk, but the folks that are usually trying to leave in these situations are angry, distrusting of the medical system, and very goal-oriented on what they want to leave the hospital for (food because they're NPO, illicit substance use, smoking, care for their dog, etc) to the point that they're capable of saying "yeah yeah I can die whatever fucker, unhook me and let me leave." These patients deserve for me to sit down with them and try and have a conversation about what we can do to keep them in the hospital because I'm worried they physically won't make it through the hospital doors before they lose consciousness.
There are also people who have capacity, want to leave for whatever reason, and aren't literally gonna die in 5 minutes. They get papers and a pat on the back as they walk out the door.
All of this hinges on a patient's decision making capacity, and the reason every single time you want to leave the hospital against medical advice (AMA) you have to talk to one of the treating doctors is they have to determine if you have capacity at the time you're making that decision. To be allowed to leave the hospital AMA you have to be able to demonstrate that you can understand why you're in the hospital, the risks of leaving the hospital AMA, and hold consistent and logical (not necessarily rational) positions on decisions/priorities. If you can't do any one of those things, you by definition don't have medical decision making capacity, and I am not only legally allowed to, but I'm ethically obligated to keep you in the hospital to be treated until either a surrogate decision maker with capacity can be identified OR you have return of your capacity after your illness improves and we have this conversation again.
This is incorrect. You just can't switch manufacturers easily if you're stable on one. But that's not a brand vs generic thing, that's an any manufacturer to any-other manufacturer thing. Same with warfarin, narrow-therapeutic index antiepileptics, etc.
No idea unfortunately, but definitely not to release pressure. You don't get air in your brain, it's all fluid. Outside of the hospital, all the drains drain to somewhere internal, usually the abdominal cavity
Am a doctor, this wasn't actually a migraine and is not how migraines happen. Shunts are placed for elevated intracranial pressure, which can occur for a number of reasons, and do cause headaches. But it's a very uncommon cause of headaches and a shunt will not fix your actual migraines or tension headaches.
It's not that we don't use mode, there are definitely times mode is used. It's just that mean (and median as well) contain a lot more useful information about distributions that we often care about. For a normal distribution mean, median, and mode should all be identical. So why do we use mean? Because mathematically, the mean is what underpins the formula for the normal distribution, not median or mode, and when you're talking about doing math with normal distributions mean is the thing to talk about (along with standard deviation).
We use median a lot too, you probably just don't hear it called median very often. The median is useful in non-normal distributions, and it defines the 50th percentile, so along with the 25%-ile and 75%-ile you've got your quartile distributions. We use these all the time to talk about grades in schools, or when we talk about home prices distributions in a given area, or salaries within a given field.
We use mode too, again just by a different name most of the time. Any time you've asked "what's the most common blank" you're basically asking for a mode. When we talk about "average" income in a country, we're usually actually talking about median or mode. Favorite animal? Answered as a mode.
You have to use the right statistical tool for your question: unfortunately English doesn't do a good job of conveying this without math jargon.
I'm sorry you're getting downvotes. I'm betting the bulk are because you're in c/askscience saying you don't have any evidence to support your question, but that's kinda the whole reason to ask a question. You weren't speculating in a top level comment so I think it's rude to be downvoting. As far as I can tell you're asking genuine questions which is kinda the whole point of this community. Fuck the haters, ask questions when you're curious!
But most animals don't leave it intact. They chew through it shortly after birth. You can't really have a tissue that is sturdy enough to survive tension during fetal development and vaginal delivery that then instantly falls apart, so it has to be manually severed after delivery. The vast majority of mammals don't let it stay attached for long at all, because their offspring are pretty mobile immediately after birth. From my reading of some of the random websites that recommend this, apparently it was based on the observations of a single species of higher ape (a chimp I think) that doesn't sever the umbilical cord quickly. But when we have been severing cords as a species for generations and the vast majority of other mammals sever the cord with their teeth, I think the evolutionary biology evidence points towards severing the cord quickly.
Now evolutionary biology isn't a solid basis for medical practice, but we don't really have much scientific data at all to base this on at this point. There have been reports of increased rates of serious infections from the practice, which has face validity with the fact that you're leaving a devascularized piece of tissue attached to the vascular system of neonate with an immature immune system. Outside of infection, there has been some case reports of polycythemia (excessively high red blood cell count) and jaundice in these infants. This makes sense physiologically. While attached to the placenta there is a greater intravascular volume available to the infant, which is the entire basis behind delayed cord cutting. It stands to reason that continuing to allow that extra blood volume to enter the infant would result in polycythemia and jaundice.
I'm not intimately familiar with the foundational literature by which the standard DCC cutoffs of 1 minutes or cessation of umbilical pulsatility were founded upon. There could be a very real argument for saying, should the time be 2 minutes? 5 minutes instead of 1? Or should we at least study it if it hasn't been already?
In summary, we have a piece of dead/dying tissue attached to a physiologically stressed neonate with an immature immune system. Leaving it attached for days is in contradiction to the vast majority of other mammalian labor behaviors, is inconsistent with the majority of human's labor history, and has a clear pathological mechanism by which the commonly reported complications can be easily explained. Without some legitimate evidence to actually support benefits or disprove the risks, I think this practice should be discouraged by healthcare professionals.
Well they don't eat it to get it off of the baby. While I'm not a vet or a zoologist, my understanding is they eat it for the nutrients as well as to help remove the scent, and newborn animals are easy prey and targeted by predators.
Am actual doctor. I think we're both closer to and further away from a Tricorder than you think.
Point of care ultrasound has been booming for the last 1-2 decades. There are now cell-phone sized wireless probes you can easily put in your pocket and do multiple diagnostic scans on the heart, lung, belly, etc with the caveat that you have to be adept at both obtaining and interpreting ultrasound images which certainly takes a lot of process.
There are devices about as big as 2-3 cell phones (think label maker or portable speaker sized) which can reliably run a whole panel of common blood tests including electrolytes, a blood gas, and hemoglobin on a 1-2mL blood sample in <5min. We also have dedicated point of care A1C devices, PT/INR devices, and probably some more I don't know about.
I don't think we'll ever have handheld xray/CT solely due to the significant radiation risk the operator would experience, even if the technology could be miniaturized.
I don't think handheld MRI will ever happen either. The power requirement alone for the magnet strength needed is immense, not to mention the dangers of the magnetic field in some random unsecured area and the length of normal scans makes a handheld device impractical.
I don't think we'll ever have "bloodless" comprehensive blood testing. There's only so much you can do with spectroscopy, and some things like electrolytes are in dramatically different concentrations between the cells and the blood so scanning through skin would likely dramatically alter readings.
TLDR we are actively miniaturizing some medical technologies. There are physics limitations in "handheld-izing " most non-ultrasound diagnostic imaging, and while we've certainly made great progress in point of care labs, I don't think we're going to get a device that can measure those things without a blood sample.