Earlier quoted context omitted.
Name some other groundbreaking medical equipment that was brought about by VC funding, please.
da Vinci Surgical System, Zio Patch cardiac monitor, Butterfly iQ handheld ultrasound, Swoop portable MRI, Shockwave Intravascular Lithotripsy, CardioMEMS HF System, Tablo Hemodialysis System, MONARCH robotic bronchoscopy platform, Mako robotic-arm orthopedic surgery system.
I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner
21–30 of 61 posts
Re: I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner
#222 things: 1. We should absolutely pursuing these kind of ideas but given then nature of technological progress and our history with “democratization” things are likely to get worse before we get better. Matt is hedging a lot here reflecting this. 2. Maybe all this stuff is as promising as the various threads suggest but it’s bizzare that this is all being argued in culture war terms (you vs the gatekeepers) and not l…
Buried in tlb's response might be the J-curve, the S-Curve (=integral of J-Curve), the hype curve, and finally Braess/Jevon/Baumol: why is healthcare inflationary if it is so helpful and so needed. The tension between helpfulness and perceived necessity must be explored, ceterum censeo (3.)
Re: I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner
#23- imaging that can get down to the cellular level easily and often.
- the ability to process that imaging data to find issues effectively.
- the ability to act on that data in a minimally invasive way.
This is a step in the right direction for one and two and the third has had progress too by others. We aren't there yet, but I can see a future where individual cells are treated and at that point all sorts of things are possible.
Re: I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Name some other groundbreaking medical equipment that was brought about by VC funding, please.
da Vinci Surgical System, Zio Patch cardiac monitor, Butterfly iQ handheld ultrasound, Swoop portable MRI, Shockwave Intravascular Lithotripsy, CardioMEMS HF System, Tablo Hemodialysis System, MONARCH robotic bronchoscopy platform, Mako robotic-arm orthopedic surgery system.
Re: I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Name some other groundbreaking medical equipment that was brought about by VC funding, please.
da Vinci Surgical System, Zio Patch cardiac monitor, Butterfly iQ handheld ultrasound, Swoop portable MRI, Shockwave Intravascular Lithotripsy, CardioMEMS HF System, Tablo Hemodialysis System, MONARCH robotic bronchoscopy platform, Mako robotic-arm orthopedic surgery system.
Re: I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner
#26Re: I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner
#27> And overall, the side effects from all the risky, invasive procedures to track down the over 90% of stuff that was harmless equal or outweigh the benefit from removing the less than 10% of stuff that wasn't harmless.
I accept this (well-used) perspective from a practical, current perspective, but not for abstract diagnostics generally. From the Bayes' theorem, and same logic you use in Kalman filters: More knowledge, if you have data on the confidence, always helps. It only causes these negative outcomes due to acting poorly with the data (e.g. due to emotions and liability concerns, I suspect here)
Re: I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner
#28The irony is I believe that if a medical devices company announced this, it was being sold to hospitals, and it would only cost the patient's insurance $100 a scan, then the medical industry would universally praise this as a breakthrough.
It is very easy to be cynical about change...especially in areas we are knowledgable...because all we see are the challenges.
And there will be lots of challenges with this. For my part, I'm not wild about what Midjourney might be allowed to do with this data. However, dealing with those problems seems better to me than leaving things as they are. This X post is a great example of "yes, and" instead of "no."
Re: I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner
#29Re: I was wrong about the Midjourney ultra-sound scanner
#30> But the only way to find out was to have invasive, risky procedures to biopsy or remove what was found. > And overall, the side effects from all the risky, invasive procedures to track down the over 90% of stuff that was harmless equal or outweigh the benefit from removing the less than 10% of stuff that wasn't harmless. I accept this (well-used) perspective from a practical, current perspective, but not for abstra…
to generalize accurately, one must forget (irrelevant) details
The risk (bottleneck) is in throwing out the relevant details