Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 159 posts

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#51

Post by ed312 »

vhcr wrote: post #46
BobbyTables2 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Samsung phone wasn’t a technological advancement, it was sheer fraud. A camera is supposed to take pictures of what it sees. Imagine going to a restaurant, ordering French onion soup, and getting a bowl of brown food coloring in water.

Where do you draw the line? RAW, HDR, photo stitching, blur removal?

This is an excellent ponit, and I don't know where to exactly draw the line ("I know it when I see it"). I personally use "auto" (probably heuristic, maybe soon-ish AI-powered) features to adjust levels, color balance etc. Using AI to add things that are _not at all present_ in the original crossed the line into digital art vs photography for me.

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#52

Post by rasmus1610 »

blegr wrote: post #20

Does this make MRIs safe for some people who wouldn’t qualify due to metal implants? Or at least reduce the risk of accidents?

Probably yes. But most medical implants today are MRI-scannable anyway. Even patients with pacemakers can be scanned today with proper preparation.

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#53

Post by rasmus1610 »

I'm a radiologist and very sceptic about low-field MRI + ML actually replacing normal high-field MRI for standard diagnostic purposes.

But in a emergency setting or especially for MRI-guided interventions these low-field MRIs can really play a significant role. Combining these low-field MRIs with rapid imaging techniques makes me really excited about what interventional techniques become possible.

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#54

Post by seanmcdirmid »

sieste wrote: post #32
BobbyTables2 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Samsung phone wasn’t a technological advancement, it was sheer fraud. A camera is supposed to take pictures of what it sees. Imagine going to a restaurant, ordering French onion soup, and getting a bowl of brown food coloring in water.

> Imagine going to a restaurant, ordering French onion soup, and getting a bowl of brown food coloring in water. Welcome to England!

I still remember the zoom and enhance joke they played on red dwarf. Parody has become reality.

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#55

Post by coffeebeqn »

teaearlgraycold wrote: post #43
atoav wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one aspect about machine learning models I keep discussing with non-technical passengers of the AI-hype-train: They are (in their current form) unsitable for applications where correctness is absolutely critical.

I don’t know enough to make absolute statements here, but deep learning models can beat out human experts at discerning between signal and noise. Using that to guess at data and then hand it off to humans gives you the worst of both worlds. Two error probabilities multiplied together. But to simply render a verdict on whether a condition exists I’d trust a proven algorithm.

There are a lot of models that are simply good at that without hallucinating nonsense. LLMs are a specific thing with their own tradeoffs and goals. If you have a ML model that says how much does this microscope photo look like an anomaly in this persons blood on a scale from 0-100 it can certainly do better than a human.

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#56

Post by sitkack »

rasmus1610 wrote: post #53

I'm a radiologist and very sceptic about low-field MRI + ML actually replacing normal high-field MRI for standard diagnostic purposes. But in a emergency setting or especially for MRI-guided interventions these low-field MRIs can really play a significant role. Combining these low-field MRIs with rapid imaging techniques makes me really excited about what interventional techniques become possible.

There is an opinion piece in the same issue that agrees with you.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp0670

> This machine costs a fraction of current clinical scanners, is safer, and needs no costly infrastructure to run (2). Although low-field machines are not capable of yielding images that are as detailed as those from high-field clinical machines, the relatively low manufacturing and operational costs offer a potential revolution in MRI technology as a point-of-care screening tool.

I don't think this machine is being billed as replacement to high-field machines.

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#58

Post by kyriakos »

pavlov wrote: post #36
BobbyTables2 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Samsung phone wasn’t a technological advancement, it was sheer fraud. A camera is supposed to take pictures of what it sees. Imagine going to a restaurant, ordering French onion soup, and getting a bowl of brown food coloring in water.

> “A camera is supposed to take pictures of what it sees.” Feels like that’s just a matter of expectations. A phone used to be a device for voice communications. It’s right there in the Greek etymology, “phonē” for sound. But 95% of what people do today on devices called phones is something else than voice. Similarly, if people start using cameras more to produce images of things they want rather than what exists in…

small correction “phonē” means voice not sound :)

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#59

Post by CooCooCaCha »

nullc wrote: post #41
eig wrote: post #24

A few months ago there were articles going around about how Samsung galaxy phones were upscaling images of the Moon using AI [0]. Essentially, the model was artificially adding landmarks and details based on its training set when the real image quality was too poor to make out details. Needless to say, AI upscaling as described in this article would be a nightmare for radiologists. 90% of radiology is confirming the…

The state of the art MRI stuff uses "compressed sensing" -- essentially image completion in some domain or another. Presumably, carefully designed to not hallucinate details or one would hope. There isn't necessarily a particularly neutral choice here: the MRI scan isn't in the pixel domain, artifacts are going to be 'weird' looking-- e.g. edges that move during the scan ringing across the whole image.

Compressed sensing is far more mathematically rigorous.

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#60

Post by xattt »

sitkack wrote: post #56
rasmus1610 wrote: post #53

I'm a radiologist and very sceptic about low-field MRI + ML actually replacing normal high-field MRI for standard diagnostic purposes. But in a emergency setting or especially for MRI-guided interventions these low-field MRIs can really play a significant role. Combining these low-field MRIs with rapid imaging techniques makes me really excited about what interventional techniques become possible.

There is an opinion piece in the same issue that agrees with you. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp0670 > This machine costs a fraction of current clinical scanners, is safer, and needs no costly infrastructure to run (2). Although low-field machines are not capable of yielding images that are as detailed as those from high-field clinical machines, the relatively low manufacturing and operational costs…

> I don't think this machine is being billed as replacement to high-field machines.

Countries where health regulation is less developed are likely to see misrepresentation where this form of MRI will be equated to full-field MRI by snake oil salesmen.

Post reply on HN