From eye exams to blood tests and surgery: how doctors use light to diagnose disease

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

This is the next article in our ‘Light and health’ series, where we look at how light affects our physical and mental health in sometimes surprising ways. Read other articles in the series.

You’re not feeling well. You’ve had a pounding headache all week, dizzy spells and have vomited up your past few meals.

You visit your GP to get some answers and sit while they shine a light in your eyes, order a blood test and request some medical imaging.

Everything your GP just did relies on light. These are just some of the optical technologies that have had an enormous impact in how we diagnose disease.

megaflopp/Shutterstock

1. On-the-spot tests

Point-of-care diagnostics allow doctors to test patients on the spot and get answers in minutes, rather than sending samples to a lab for analysis.

The “flashlight” your GP uses to view the inside of your eye (known as an ophthalmoscope) is a great example. This allows doctors to detect abnormal blood flow in the eye, deformations of the cornea (the outermost clear layer of the eye), or swollen optical discs (a round section at the back of the eye where the nerve link to the brain begins). Swollen discs are a sign of elevated pressure inside your head (or in the worst case, a brain tumour) that could be causing your headaches.

The invention of lasers and LEDs has enabled many other miniaturised technologies to be provided at the bedside or clinic rather than in the lab.

Pulse oximetry is a famous example, where a clip attached to your finger reports how well your blood is oxygenated. It does this by measuring the different responses of oxygenated and de-oxygenated blood to different colours of light.

Pulse oximetry is used at hospitals (and sometimes at home) to monitor your respiratory and heart health. In hospitals, it is also a valuable tool for detecting heart defects in babies.

Pulse oximeter on finger of hospital patient, person holding patient's hand
See that clip on the patient’s finger? That’s a pulse oximeter, which relies on light to monitor respiratory and heart health. CGN089/Shutterstock

2. Looking at molecules

Now, back to that blood test. Analysing a small amount of your blood can diagnose many different diseases.

A machine called an automated “full blood count analyser” tests for general markers of your health. This machine directs focused beams of light through blood samples held in small glass tubes. It counts the number of blood cells, determines their specific type, and reports the level of haemoglobin (the protein in red blood cells that distributes oxygen around your body). In minutes, this machine can provide a snapshot of your overall health.

For more specific disease markers, blood serum is separated from the heavier cells by spinning in a rotating instrument called a centrifuge. The serum is then exposed to special chemical stains and enzyme assays that change colour depending on whether specific molecules, which may be the sign of a disease, are present.

These colour changes can’t be detected with the naked eye. However, a light beam from an instrument called a spectrometer can detect tiny amounts of these substances in the blood and determine if the biomarkers for diseases are present, and at what levels.

Gloved hand holding tube containing blood sample, more tubes in rack in background
Light shines through the blood sample and tells us whether biomarkers for disease are present. angellodeco/Shutterstock

3. Medical imaging

Let’s re-visit those medical images your GP ordered. The development of fibre-optic technology, made famous for transforming high-speed digital communications (such as the NBN), allows light to get inside the body. The result? High-resolution optical imaging.

A common example is an endoscope, where fibres with a tiny camera on the end are inserted into the body’s natural openings (such as your mouth or anus) to examine your gut or respiratory tracts.

Surgeons can insert the same technology through tiny cuts to view the inside of the body on a video screen during laparoscopic surgery (also known as keyhole surgery) to diagnose and treat disease.

Endoscope tube
Doctors can insert this flexible fibre-optic tube with a camera on the end into your body. Eduard Valentinov/Shutterstock

How about the future?

Progress in nanotechnology and a better understanding of the interactions of light with our tissues are leading to new light-based tools to help diagnose disease. These include:

  • nanomaterials (materials on an extremely small scale, many thousands of times smaller than the width of a human hair). These are being used in next-generation sensors and new diagnostic tests
  • wearable optical biosensors the size of your fingernail can be included in devices such as watches, contact lenses or finger wraps. These devices allow non-invasive measurements of sweat, tears and saliva, in real time
  • AI tools to analyse how blood serum scatters infrared light. This has allowed researchers to build a comprehensive database of scatter patterns to detect any cancer
  • a type of non-invasive imaging called optical coherence tomography for more detailed imaging of the eye, heart and skin
  • fibre optic technology to deliver a tiny microscope into the body on the tip of a needle.

So the next time you’re at the GP and they perform (or order) some tests, chances are that at least one of those tests depend on light to help diagnose disease.

Matthew Griffith, Associate Professor and ARC Future Fellow and Director, UniSA Microscopy and Microanalysis Facilities, University of South Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Recommended

  • 5 dental TikTok trends you probably shouldn’t try at home
  • What’s The Difference Between Minoxidil For Men vs For Women?
    It’s Q&A Day: Dive into the truth about minoxidil for men and women, and the science of treating hair loss at 10almonds!

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Ice Cream vs Fruit Sorbet – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing ice cream to fruit sorbet, we picked the ice cream.

    Why?

    Well, neither are great!

    But the deciding factor is simple: ice cream has more nutrients to go with its sugar.

    While “fruit is good” is a very reliable truism in and of itself, sorbet tends to be made with fruit juice (or at best, purée, which for these purposes is more or less the same) and sugar. The small vitamin content is nowhere near enough to make up for this. The fiber having been removed by juicing or puréeing, the fruit juice with added sugar is basically shooting glucose and fructose into your veins while doing little else.

    Fruit juice (even freshly-pressed) is nowhere near in the same league of healthiness as actual fruit!

    See also: Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same?

    Ice cream, meanwhile, is also not exactly a health food. But it has at least some minerals worth speaking of (mostly: calcium, potassium, phosphorus), and some fat that a) can be used b) helps slightly slow the absorption of the sugars.

    In short: please do not consider either of these things to be a health food. But if you’re going to choose one or the other (and are not lactose-intolerant), then ice cream has some small positives to go with its negatives.

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Millet vs Buckwheat – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing millet to buckwheat, we picked the buckwheat.

    Why?

    Both of these naturally gluten-free grains* have their merits, but we say buckwheat comes out on top for most people (we’ll discuss the exception later).

    *actually buckwheat is a flowering pseudocereal, but in culinary terms, we’ll call it a grain, much like we call tomato a vegetable.

    Considering the macros first of all, millet has slightly more carbs while buckwheat has more than 2x the fiber. An easy win for buckwheat (they’re about equal on protein, by the way).

    In the category of vitamins, millet has more of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B6, and B9, while buckwheat has more of vitamins B5, E, K, and choline. Superficially that’s a 5:4 win for millet, though buckwheat’s margins of difference are notably greater, so the overall vitamin coverage could arguably be considered a tie.

    When it comes to minerals, millet has more phosphorus and zinc, while buckwheat has more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, and selenium. For most of them, buckwheat’s margins of difference are again greater. An easy win for buckwheat, in any case.

    This all adds up to a clear win for buckwheat, but as promised, there is an exception: if you have issues with your kidneys that mean you are avoiding oxalates, then millet becomes the healthier choice, as buckwheat is rather high in oxalates while millet is low in same.

    For everyone else: enjoy both! Diversity is good. But if you’re going to pick one, buckwheat’s the winner.

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Grains: Bread Of Life, Or Cereal Killer?

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Flax Seeds vs Pumpkin Seeds – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing flax seeds to pumpkin seeds, we picked the flax.

    Why?

    Looking at the macros first, they are equal on protein, and flax seeds have a lot more fiber while pumpkin seeds have a lot more carbs. We’re going to prioritise fiber over carbs and call this a win for flax.

    In terms of vitamins, flax seeds have a lot more of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B7, B9, C, E, K, and choline, while pumpkin seeds have a tiny bit more vitamin A. An easy win for flax here.

    When it comes to minerals, flax has multiples more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, and selenium, while pumpkin seeds have more zinc. Another win for flax.

    Adding up the sections makes for a clear overall win for flax, but by all means enjoy either or both; diversity is good!

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    What’s Your Plant Diversity Score? ← seeds count as plants!

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • 5 dental TikTok trends you probably shouldn’t try at home
  • Fasting, eating earlier in the day or eating fewer meals – what works best for weight loss?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Globally, one in eight people are living with obesity. This is an issue because excess fat increases the risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease and certain cancers.

    Modifying your diet is important for managing obesity and preventing weight gain. This might include reducing your calorie intake, changing your eating patterns and prioritising healthy food.

    But is one formula for weight loss more likely to result in success than another? Our new research compared three weight-loss methods, to see if one delivered more weight loss than the others:

    • altering calorie distribution – eating more calories earlier rather than later in the day
    • eating fewer meals
    • intermittent fasting.

    We analysed data from 29 clinical trials involving almost 2,500 people.

    We found that over 12 weeks or more, the three methods resulted in similar weight loss: 1.4–1.8kg.

    So if you do want to lose weight, choose a method that works best for you and your lifestyle.

    chalermphon_tiam/Shutterstock

    Eating earlier in the day

    When our metabolism isn’t functioning properly, our body can’t respond to the hormone insulin properly. This can lead to weight gain, fatigue and can increase the risk of a number of chronic diseases such as diabetes.

    Eating later in the day – with a heavy dinner and late-night snacking – seems to lead to worse metabolic function. This means the body becomes less efficient at converting food into energy, managing blood sugar and regulating fat storage.

    In contrast, consuming calories earlier in the day appears to improve metabolic function.

    However, this might not be the case for everyone. Some people naturally have an evening “chronotype”, meaning they wake up and stay up later.

    People with this chronotype appear to have less success losing weight, no matter the method. This is due to a combination of factors including genes, an increased likelihood to have a poorer diet overall and higher levels of hunger hormones.

    Eating fewer meals

    Skipping breakfast is common, but does it hinder weight loss? Or is a larger breakfast and smaller dinner ideal?

    While frequent meals may reduce disease risk, recent studies suggest that compared to eating one to two meals a day, eating six times a day might increase weight loss success.

    However, this doesn’t reflect the broader research, which tends to show consuming fewer meals can lead to greater weight loss. Our research suggests three meals a day is better than six. The easiest way to do this is by cutting out snacks and keeping breakfast, lunch and dinner.

    Most studies compare three versus six meals, with limited evidence on whether two meals is better than three.

    However, front-loading your calories (consuming most of your calories between breakfast and lunch) appears to be better for weight loss and may also help reduce hunger across the day. But more studies with a longer duration are needed.

    Fasting, or time-restricted eating

    Many of us eat over a period of more than 14 hours a day.

    Eating late at night can throw off your body’s natural rhythm and alter how your organs function. Over time, this can increase your risk of type 2 diabetes and other chronic diseases, particularly among shift workers.

    Time-restricted eating, a form of intermittent fasting, means eating all your calories within a six- to ten-hour window during the day when you’re most active. It’s not about changing what or how much you eat, but when you eat it.

    Man looks at his watch
    Some people limit their calories to a six hour window, while others opt for ten hours. Shutterstock/NIKS ADS

    Animal studies suggest time-restricted eating can lead to weight loss and improved metabolism. But the evidence in humans is still limited, especially about the long-term benefits.

    It’s also unclear if the benefits of time-restricted eating are due to the timing itself or because people are eating less overall. When we looked at studies where participants ate freely (with no intentional calorie limits) but followed an eight-hour daily eating window, they naturally consumed about 200 fewer calories per day.

    What will work for you?

    In the past, clinicians have thought about weight loss and avoiding weight gain as a simile equation of calories in and out. But factors such as how we distribute our calories across the day, how often we eat and whether we eat late at night may also impact our metabolism, weight and health.

    There are no easy ways to lose weight. So choose a method, or combination of methods, that suits you best. You might consider

    • aiming to eat in an eight-hour window
    • consuming your calories earlier, by focusing on breakfast and lunch
    • opting for three meals a day, instead of six.

    The average adult gains 0.4 to 0.7 kg per year. Improving the quality of your diet is important to prevent this weight gain and the strategies above might also help.

    Finally, there’s still a lot we don’t know about these eating patterns. Many existing studies are short-term, with small sample sizes and varied methods, making it hard to make direct comparisons.

    More research is underway, including well-controlled trials with larger samples, diverse populations and consistent methods. So hopefully future research will help us better understand how altering our eating patterns can result in better health.

    Hayley O’Neill, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University and Loai Albarqouni, Assistant Professor | NHMRC Emerging Leadership Fellow, Bond University

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Eating on the Wild Side: – by Jo Robinson

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    The author is an investigative journalist, and it shows here, as she leaves no stone unturned in her quest for the truth in the face of many food myths.

    She covers a lot of “popular wisdom” things that are varyingly true or false, or sometimes even both—in the case of food lore that’s a good rule of thumb, but has notable exceptions (e.g. “more colorful and/or darker-colored fruits/vegetables contain more nutrients”, which is a very good rule of thumb until one meets a cauliflower, for example).

    She also covers food preparation myths, and how, to give one example, in spite of the popularity of “less cooked is better”, in some cases certain cooking methods will indeed destroy nutrients; in others, certain cooking methods will improve nutritional availability. Either by destroying an adjacent antinutrient (e.g. phytates), or by breaking something down into a more manageable form that our body can absorb. Knowing which is which, is important.

    The book is organized by kinds of food, and does exclusively cover plants, but there’s more than enough material for any omnivore to enjoy.

    The style is… Journalistic, it would be fair to say. Which is not surprising, given the author. But it means that it is written in a fairly narrative way, to draw the reader in and make it an enjoyable read while still being informative in all parts (there is no padding). In terms of science, the in-the-prose science is as minimal as possible to still convey what needs to be conveyed, while 25 pages of bibliography stack up at the end to show that indeed, this journalist cites sources.

    Bottom line: this is a really enjoyable book, packed with a wealth of knowledge, and is perfect to uplift your cooking by knowing your ingredients a little more intimately!

    Click here to check out Eating On The Wild Side, and, enjoy!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Change Your Brain, Change Your Life – by Dr. Daniel G. Amen

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    To what extent can we change our brains, and to what extent are we stuck with what we have?

    Dr. Amen tells us that being mindful of both ends of this is critical:

    • Neuroplasticity means we can, indeed, change our brains
    • We do, however, have fundamental “brain types” based on our neurochemistry and physical brain structure

    He argues for the use of brain imaging technology to learn more about the latter… In order to better go about doing what we can with the former.

    The book looks at how these different brain types can lead to situations where what works as a treatment for one person can often not work for another. It’s also prescriptive, about what sorts of treatments (and lifestyle adjustments) are more likely to do better for each.

    Where the book excels is in giving ideas and pointers for exploration… Things to take to one’s doctor, and—for example—request certain tests, and then what to do with those.

    Where the book is a little light is on including hard science in the explanations. The hard science is referred to, but is considered beyond the scope of the book, or perhaps beyond the interest of the reader. That’s unfortunate, as we’d have liked to have seen more of it, rather than taking claims at face value without evidence.

    Bottom line: this is distinctly “pop science” in presentation, but can give a lot of great ideas for learning more about our own brains and brain health… And then optimizing such.

    Click here to check out “Change Your Brain; Change Your Life” on Amazon today!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: