Awesome work. The second video is great. I don’t know enough about medical science to consider viability and shortcomings, but I’m impressed by the dream. Keep cooking.
And even if the device fails, I’m sure the spa will be nice.
Midjourney Medical
361–370 of 927 posts
Re: Midjourney Medical
#362This is really interesting! And perhaps surprisingly doesn't trigger any immediate major technical red flags (as someone who has worked with MRI and phased array beamforming), as many HN HW articles do. My only criticism from the tech video would be that they spend some time lauding the nanometer deflection sensitivity, which might lead some to believe that's indicative of the image resolution. It's not, and it's som…
MRI physicist here as well. I have a basic understanding of ultrasound, and this looks like an array of transducers organized to perform tomography, just as CT did for Xray.
However Ultrasound quality depends highly on transducer-skin contact.
Any physicists here to comment on the effects of sonar through liquid and the effects on image resolution and field of view?
Re: Midjourney Medical
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find using tens of thousands of ultrasonic chips, submerged underwater to provide you a radiation free full body scan, all while processing a petabyte of data per scan a pretty ambitious and cool project. I hope they make it work.
1 petabyte per 60 second scans implies a kind of comical data rate to storage, even at RAM speeds that’s implausible. Imagine we need to write these to hard drives, they happily sustain 150Mb/s on the high end, which would imply you’d need 115,000 hard drives to absorb that amount of writes. Even with top end NVMe drives you’d need a thousand of them writing simultaneously.
You’re completely right, this is why currently ultrasound reconstruction happens on FPGAs. They would need a lot of them given the number of transducers.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6057541/
Re: Midjourney Medical
#364Always trump with the savior card when bad PR¹ starts creeping in.
Re: Midjourney Medical
#365I have a mixed response: 1. It kind of makes sense that an AI imagery company would apply that to other novel applications of imagery and computing and try to do something cool with it. 2. Midjourney as a brand is all over the place and this feels - off , somehow. I think from a branding pov they should have just started a different company with a different name. Perhaps a single image-focused umbrella company named…
The pivot to do things they want as AI research lab is perfectly understandable, but also..weird, like their loyal userbase are mostly creative people, and this pivot have ZERO things to do with those audience at all.
It also gives a vibe that they gives zero damn about to those creatives audience, or the things that made name for them in the past anymore, or that what I feel as their subscriber... I know that David Holz have his own unique way of doing things but it's still...weird!
oh, and the hypetrain on X. yikes..
Re: Midjourney Medical
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if you let them. The false positive thing is a nonissue that only arises from assuming you would respond to information a certain way.
That makes no sense at all, unless you're saying that people should respond to all such information by ignoring it.
In which case, why bother getting the information in the first place?
Re: Midjourney Medical
#367They should ask their LLM for fun things to do in prison! Or ask Elizabeth Holmes.
Re: Midjourney Medical
#368This is ridiculously optimistic. The technology, USCT with full waveform inversion, is not new. It’s already used in breast imaging (SoftVue) and hasn’t replace mammography. A body part ideally suited for ultrasound. More compute many minimize some of the fundamental limits of sound waves (bone and gas) but I would be shocked if they have useful images of 90% of the body parts we image with CT or MRI and even beyond…
Exactly, try can get a very limited FOV which is probably why they showcased it on arms/legs first
Re: Midjourney Medical
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not putting my head under. How do we know this won't cause aneurysms? Damage eyes and ears? Getting a medical device approved takes time because of concerns like this.
We already ultrasound babies in the womb, so one would hope this has been studied.
Before ultrasound, they used to x-ray pregnant women to see the fetus. At that time, someone might have said "one would hope this has been studied"... unfortunately that practice went on for about 60 years before being stopped in the late 1950s.
Side note: kinda crazy they had medical x-rays in the 1890s. X-Ray imaging was discovered in 1985 and used clinically within 2 years.
But I do agree with your point, these days, I hope we're better about studying the potential dangers of current technologies we use.
Re: Midjourney Medical
#370> enough to give regular, monthly scans to a billion people. There is a part of me that thinks it would be cool to get cheap full body scans. I like being able to see inside of myself. I can think of a lot of situations where the low-fidelity images coming out of this (they're not good compared to real medical imaging, if you've ever looking at MRI/CT up close) could be useful for coarse analysis of certain condition…
> The number of false positives would be overwhelming and lead to a lot of unnecessary procedures to calm the resulting anxieties. If the scans are cheap and fast enough, the solution is to not do anything until you’ve observed the mass in question grow over time, not just be there .
This. The solution to all these "but what about spurious results" arguments is pretty obvious: Wait for some time, scan again, compare the results. We currently can't do this only because the required frequent scans are not cheap enough to do it en masse, so the scanning demands for masses of spurious results would overwhelm the system. Once cheap scanning (and actually good AI interpretation) becomes ubiquitous, this ceases to be an issue.