HKTDC helps PanopticAI take its AI-powered health monitoring app onto global stage
Advertisement
One of the trade promotion body's missions is to provide Hong Kong companies with advisory services, resources, connections and promotional tools so that they can not only flourish but also expand their reach beyond the city's shores.
Its Start-up Express programme is one example of how it provides business support. Each year, the scheme, which was launched in 2018, selects 10 of the city's promising innovative technology companies and helps them to improve their capabilities, identify and explore opportunities, find business and funding partners, and increase their brand awareness.
PanopticAI, a start-up working in health technology – one of the main focuses of the programme – is one of the successful businesses that have benefited from its support.
A built-in camera on a smartphone, tablet or computer helps PanopticAI's Vitals app measure a person's heart rate, blood pressure, breathing rate, oxygen saturation and stress level.
The company, founded in 2020, has developed its Vitals app, an AI-powered health and wellness monitoring solution, which uses the built-in camera of a smartphone, tablet or computer to measure a person's heart rate, blood pressure, breathing rate, oxygen saturation and stress level. Its app is able to capture these readings by analysing subtle differences in a person's natural skin colour caused by changes in their blood flow.
Advertisement
The idea for the app was conceived during the Covid-19 pandemic, which sparked a growing demand for new methods of remote patient monitoring. Today the technology is continuing to help healthcare providers reduce the workload of their staff through the effective management of chronic diseases and the early detection of illnesses.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTHK
17 hours ago
- RTHK
Tech and talent key to future of public hospitals: Ko
Tech and talent key to future of public hospitals: Ko Tony Ko says digital transformation will remain central to tackling rising healthcare demands. Photo: RTHK Outgoing Hospital Authority Chief Executive Tony Ko says new technology and a skilled workforce are key to the future of the public health system, as he reflected on his six years in the job. Ko was speaking to the media ahead of the end of his tenure on July 31, when he will be replaced by former Under Secretary for Health Libby Lee Ko said that advancing healthcare technology -- through initiatives like telehealth, Smart Hospital 2.0 and the clinical management system – was vital to better patient care and clinical service quality. He also said a few large projects were set to come onstream. "We have a few hospital projects already in place now, say the new Kwong Wah Hospital... and we have more projects coming up. We will soon have the new clinical blocks of Queen Mary Hospital and all the other things," he said. Ko said medical personnel had grown by over 10 percent and that more than 300 non-locally trained doctors were now serving in public hospitals. "We noticed that our manpower situation has actually much improved when compared to six years ago. "Not only we have a much lower attrition rate now, but also we are able to attract talent from different parts of the world, from overseas, from the mainland, literally making Hong Kong become an international medical talent hub." Ko, a geriatrician who steered the authority through the Covid outbreak, said Hong Kong has now faced two major pandemics - if the 2003 Sars outbreak is also included - and that that the authority is now well-prepared for any that may occur in future. After over 30 years' experience in the public health system, Ko described his role as fulfilling and rewarding. He said he now aims to pursue further education, possibly in history or music.
RTHK
2 days ago
- RTHK
'HK-made Chinese medicines to grow in popularity'
'HK-made Chinese medicines to grow in popularity' Wing Chu (left) says streamlined approval procedures offer more opportunities for Hong Kong-made proprietary Chinese medicines to be sold on the mainland. Photo: RTHK Hong Kong-made proprietary Chinese medicine products have great potential to enter mainland and overseas markets, the Hong Kong Trade Development Council said on Thursday. The mainland, which is the largest proprietary Chinese medicine market valued at 450 billion yuan, has streamlined the registration and approval procedures for products from Hong Kong. At a press conference, the council's principal economist of Greater China, Wing Chu, said Hong Kong's exports of proprietary Chinese medicines totalled HK$2.88 billion last year. More than 70 percent of the city's products were exported to the mainland, followed by 20 percent to Macau. Although the mainland mainly relies on its own drug production and only imports a small amount of Chinese medicines, over half of its imported proprietary Chinese medicines are from Hong Kong, Chu said. He added that the streamlined approval procedures offer more opportunities for Hong Kong businesses to expand into the Greater Bay Area and other mainland cities. 'Maybe Hong Kong-produced products are not the cheapest in the market, and there are a lot of alternative choices over there, but Hong Kong proprietary Chinese medicine products have a [good reputation] in mainland China, especially in the southern part of mainland China,' he said. Chu said there is also demand for Chinese medicines in overseas markets, particularly in Southeast Asia. 'But apart from this, there is also a lot of demand … even in the US or some European countries. They also have a demand for the traditional Chinese medicines. And this actually provides a very good market potential for us to explore,' he said. The council also said the opening of Hong Kong's first Chinese medicine hospital at the end of the year will help make proprietary Chinese medicines even more popular.
AllAfrica
19-07-2025
- AllAfrica
Cog war's glaring and growing legal blind spot
Imagine waking up to the news that a deadly new strain of flu has emerged in your city. Health officials are downplaying it, but social media is flooded with contradictory claims from 'medical experts' debating its origin and severity. Hospitals are filled with patients showing flu-like symptoms, preventing other patients from accessing care and ultimately leading to deaths. It gradually emerges that a foreign adversary orchestrated this panic by planting false information – such as the strain having a very high death rate. Yet despite the casualties, no rules define this as an act of war. This is cognitive warfare, or cog war for short, where the cognitive domain is used on battlefields or in hostile attacks below the threshold of war. A classical example of cog war is a concept called 'reflexive control' – an art refined by Russia over many decades. It involves shaping an adversary's perceptions to your own benefit without them understanding that they have been manipulated. In the context of the Ukraine conflict, this has included narratives about historical claims to Ukrainian land and portraying the west as morally corrupt. Cog war serves to gain advantage over an adversary by targeting attitudes and behaviour at the individual, group or population level. It is designed to modify perceptions of reality, making 'human cognition shaping' into a critical realm of warfare. It is therefore a weapon in a geopolitical battle that plays out by interactions across human minds rather than across physical realms. Because cog war can be waged without the physical damage regulated by the current laws of war, it exists in a legal vacuum. But that doesn't mean it cannot ultimately incite violence based on false information or cause injury and death by secondary effects. The notion that war is essentially a mental contest, where cognitive manipulation is central, harks back to the strategist Sun Tzu (fifth century BC), author of The Art of War. Today, the online domain is the main arena for such operations. The digital revolution has allowed ever-more tailored content to play into biases mapped through our digital footprint, which is called 'microtargeting.' Machine intelligence can even feed us targeted content without ever taking a picture or recording a video. All it takes is a well-designed AI prompt, supporting bad actors' predefined narrative and goals, while covertly misleading the audience. Such disinformation campaigns increasingly reach into the physical domain of the human body. In the war in Ukraine, we see continued cog war narratives. These include allegations that the Ukrainian authorities were concealing or purposefully inciting cholera outbreaks. Allegations of US-supported bioweapons labs also formed part of false-flag justifications for Russia's full-scale invasion. During Covid, false information led to deaths when people refused protective measures or used harmful remedies to treat it. Some narratives during the pandemic were driven as part of a geopolitical battle. While the US engaged in covert information operations, Russian and Chinese state-linked actors coordinated campaigns that used AI-generated social media personas and microtargeting to shape opinions at the level of communities and individuals. Fake image of Donald Trump being arrested. Image: Wikipedia The capability of microtargeting may evolve rapidly as methods for brain-machine coupling become more proficient at collecting data on cognition patterns. Ways of providing a better interface between machines and the human brain range from advanced electrodes that you can put on your scalp to virtual reality goggles with sensory stimulation for a more immersive experience. DARPA's Next-Generation Nonsurgical Neurotechnology (N3) program illustrates how these devices may become capable of reading from and writing to multiple points in the brain simultaneously . However, these tools might also be hacked or fed poisoned data as a part of future information manipulation or psychological disruption strategies. Directly linking the brain to the digital world in this way will erode the line between the information domain and the human body in a way never done before. Traditional laws of war assume physical force such as bombs and bullets as the primary concern, leaving cognitive warfare in a legal grey zone. Is psychological manipulation an 'armed attack' that justifies self-defence under the UN charter? Currently, no clear answer exists. A state actor could potentially use health disinformation to create mass casualties in another country without formally starting a war. Similar gaps exist in situations where war, as we traditionally see it, is actually ongoing. Here, cog war can blur the line between permitted military deception (ruses of war) and prohibited perfidy. Imagine a humanitarian vaccination program secretly collecting DNA, while covertly used by military forces to map clan-based insurgent networks. This exploitation of medical trust would constitute perfidy under humanitarian law – but only if we start recognizing such manipulative tactics as part of warfare. So, what can be done to protect us in this new reality? First, we need to rethink what 'threats' mean in modern conflict. The UN charter already outlaws 'threats to use force' against other nations, but this makes us stuck in a mindset of physical threats. When a foreign power floods your media with false health alerts designed to create panic, isn't that threatening your country just as effectively as a military blockade? While this issue was recognized as early as 2017 by the groups of experts who drafted the Tallinn Manual on cyberwarfare (Rule 70), our legal frameworks haven't caught up. Second, we must acknowledge that psychological harm is real harm. When we think about war injuries, we picture physical wounds. But post-traumatic stress disorder has long been recognised as a legitimate war injury – so why not the mental health effects of targeted cognitive operations? Finally, traditional laws of war might not be enough – we should look to human rights frameworks for solutions. These already include protections for freedom of thought, freedom of opinion and prohibitions against war propaganda that could shield civilians from cognitive attacks. States have obligations to uphold these rights both within their territory and abroad. The use of increasingly sophisticated tactics and technologies to manipulate cognition and emotion poses one of the most insidious threats to human autonomy in our time. Only by adapting our legal frameworks to this challenge can we foster societal resilience and equip future generations to confront the crises and conflicts of tomorrow. David Gisselsson Nord is professor, Division of Clinical Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University and Alberto Rinaldi is postdoctoral researcher in human rights and humanitarian law, Lund University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
