If Alexander Graham Bell were to come back to life and see what the telephone looks like today, compared with his own invention, he would definitely be astonished. It may not even be appropriate to call today's devices “telephones.” They are multitasking gadgets capable of a myriad of other operations. It is astonishing that the Apple iPhone claims over 350 000 specialized applications (better known as “apps”). On the basis of their multitasking capabilities, many have claimed that “smart phones” could have important applications in medicine, including the automatic transmission and sharing of laboratory data, images, and so forth in real time, for more effective patient care (1). In a recent issue of the journal Science Translational Medicine , Haun et al. described a micro–nuclear magnetic resonance (micro-NMR)5 device for the rapid molecular analysis of human tumor samples (2). In the editor's summary, the title was modified to read “A Micro-NMR Smart Phone for Detecting Cancer.” Unfortunately, the editor, in his effort to draw more attention, portrayed the smart phone as an integral part of this futuristic diagnostic device. In this case, however, the smart phone was only a minor player that merely controlled the NMR device, an operation that could probably be performed more conveniently with a remote control or a button on the NMR unit. Nevertheless, we describe this pioneering technology in an effort to realistically evaluate its usefulness and performance as the technology stands today. It is common in the diagnostic and biomarker field for advances like this one to be oversold and for overly optimistic views to be expressed regarding their clinical utility. The phenomenon of declining interest in published reports over time has become known as the “decline effect” (3). Some examples of oversold and subsequently failed cancer biomarkers have recently been discussed (4 …
Read full abstract