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

Midjourney Medical

midjourney.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

721–730 of 927 posts

Re: Midjourney Medical

#721

Post by gbrito »

deadeye wrote: post #667
owenthejumper wrote: post #607

Almost nobody here is a doctor, and it shows...over diagnosis, over treatment, those are all terms that doctors learn about in medical school. Image segmentation is a real problem, and achieving better precision is a good goal. The "golden" standard these days is likely https://github.com/wasserth/totalsegmentator , if someone can make it even more accurate, that would be very very good. But yet again, there are infi…

This is more true than people realize. My wife and I got full body MRI scans. Both showed "possible" medical issues. My though was "Great, I have a baseline, in two years I'll get another one and compare". My wife on the other hand got a bit obsessed about her results and had what was probably an unnecessary procedure to biopsy something, which turned out to be benign. I suppose you could argue that another way...bet…

> ...unnecessary procedure to biopsy something, which turned out to be benign.

The point here is many issues can't be resolved safely with a biopsy or minor procedures, so one ends up under serious risk of a major surgery for something that would never cause any damage.

Plenty of people die this way. If not, one might even thank his doctor for saving his life afterwards.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#722

Post by cityofdelusion »

aeonik wrote: post #596
fastasucan wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if a "condition" doesn't impact you, will it help to be aware of it? Over treatment can be a real problem. You dont want to take medisine you dont need, or spend much time in a hospital if there is no net positive outcome.

For me? If I could have daily full 3d body scans, and time lapse healing, track injury progress, visualize and correlate food and exercise. And all I have to do is chill out about known benign cysts and tumors. Yes I think it will help. I would take that trade off. I already can feel a few cysts that have been with me for a long time, docs said I was fine, so I've already been through the stressful initiation of beni…

You won’t know they are benign unless you plan on a biopsy or surgery for every finding. It’s exactly this reason why we only regularly scan people that have say, known cancer.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#723

Post by CooCooCaCha »

nancyminusone wrote: post #706
sbarre wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you (and others) are getting caught up in your own worse-case interpretation of the words of that statement, instead of looking at the intent of it. It is perhaps not the best wording but I think it's pretty easy to take that "megabytes per second per dollar" statement and choose to interpret it less poorly, and more like "having better, cheaper and more abundant useful data about yourself and your health".

I'm sorry, I do not take implied statements lightly in regards to medical.

The only relevant implication is the word “useful”. Clearly we want useful data, that’s obvious.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#724

Post by simianwords »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #669
simianwords wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't really get what this means. A false positive causes issues inherently - you don't know if it's right or wrong. It's noise which is bad for care, and it's anxiety-inducing for patients which is also bad. No its not. This is extremely paternalistic. Humans know how to understand noise and statistics. You don't get to decide that for me. I want more lives saved with more information.

It’s not paternalistic. It’s reality. Most people are not equipped to vet all the medical information that comes their way. That’s why we should talk to our doctors about results. I don’t think my mechanic is being paternalistic when he talks through my car and what is/isn’t important. I like that helps me prioritize things. Why is this any different? In the end a person can tell a doctor “I don’t care run the test”…

I agree but do you want your mechanic to hide information from you for any reason? For instance, that information can have false positives.

Like, your mechanic hides the fact that your engine may be broken but he's just 70% sure of it. Since he's not 99% sure, he hides it from you. Do you think its a good thing to do?

Re: Midjourney Medical

#725

Post by bonsai_spool »

senordevnyc wrote: post #710
Aurornis wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rarely. More often it leads to people thinking they have issues when they don't. The same thing happens with blood tests: You can order all the blood tests you want if you're willing to pay for them. If you order enough, you will get some that show up as abnormal. You can start spending tens of thousands of dollars ruling things out and never catch any real issues.

I’d want to see the data, and even if you had 10x the rate of false positives (to true positives) that resulted in unnecessary tests and procedures, it still could be worth it, depending on the severity of what you avoided with the testing.

> I’d want to see the data

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ Go right ahead!

Re: Midjourney Medical

#726

Post by vmg12 »

jmhmd wrote: post #683

Some initial thoughts as a practicing radiologist: - This looks really cool and I hope they keep innovating on this. I love seeing new modalities develop and despite my (many) reservations and criticisms, if even one good use case comes out of it that truly helps people, it's tech money well spent imo. - They show the reconstructed images as though they are a low resolution CT, and promise that quality will improve a…

> "Incidentalomas" or unexpected, probably benign, findings are annoying to physicians

For a lot of these things I wonder why they don't just do multiple scans just to see how things develop. Is it a cost issue?

Re: Midjourney Medical

#727

Post by Aromasin »

wasabi991011 wrote: post #634
Aromasin wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I help engineers design traditional scanners (Philips, GE, Siemens, etc). To be frank, this statement stinks like utter pig shit. Some PE bro preaching miracles about a technology that I am sure they are in some way invested in making profit from does not convince me of it's legitimacy. My base instincts, from the unfortunate experience of working daily with PE bros, tell me the opposite in fact. It gives déjà vu of…

The X post is obviously biased, but I couldn't spot any obvious scientific mistakes in the actual announcement video. Someone else linked to this preprint which seems related [1]. Would you take a look and say whether it seems legitimate? [1] Whole Cross-Sectional Human Ultrasound Tomography” https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.00110

The authors report explicitly state that the system's resolution does not match clinical CT or MRI. The elevational resolution is 15–25mm, meaning each slice is effectively a thick 2D section rather than the fine isotropic 3D volume MRI provides. MRI also delivers far richer soft-tissue contrast; this device produces only three contrast types (reflectivity, speed of sound, attenuation), and because it uses a low 1MHz frequency, the reflection images come primarily from tissue boundaries rather than from internal tissue texture.

I could see this being valuable for adipose tissue mapping or fatty-liver monitoring at a large scale, as the machines would be significantly cheaper, but this isn't some revolutionary magic bullet like the Twitter post is insinuating.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#728

Post by moduspol »

christina97 wrote: post #685
moduspol wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way we figure out how to catch issues before you notice them (i.e. proactively keeping you healthy) and figure out the best ways to fix them (i.e. reactively helping you get back to healthy) is by having more data from more people in more situations, so we can make those determinations. I understand some of the current fatigue around biohacking and chasing perhaps-irrelevant metrics, but takes like this surprise…

GP is saying that the goal should be something entirely different from gathering lots of data. Do you think the average person wants a higher resolution time series of their weight, or better access to a higher quality doctor, cheaper?

I think in a more sane universe, we'd be 50-100 years further along into medicine today just by gathering and analyzing more data with the technology we already have. And all doctors would be able to make better decisions.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#729

Post by b40d-48b2-979e »

conroydave wrote: post #719
jmhmd wrote: post #683

Some initial thoughts as a practicing radiologist: - This looks really cool and I hope they keep innovating on this. I love seeing new modalities develop and despite my (many) reservations and criticisms, if even one good use case comes out of it that truly helps people, it's tech money well spent imo. - They show the reconstructed images as though they are a low resolution CT, and promise that quality will improve a…

this is why i always come to hacker news for the expert opinions. thank you for being critical yet optimistic.

You don't know if the opinion is expert. You don't know who that person is or what credentials they even have. Blindly trusting something that sounds right is a terrible way to inform yourself.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#730

Post by sroussey »

stymaar wrote: post #380
sroussey wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the whole population had a full body scan every quarter, the “weird” things would feel more like the noise they are. But we would have great data over time, both individually (weird tends to only matter if they are changing) and as a population.

Maybe it would end up fine “in the long run” but you cannot ignore the significant issues arising at the beginning (and at each release of a more performant tool): what do you do if you find something that “shouldn't be there".

With enough data, it might change our idea of what shouldn’t be there. Like an appendix. But personalized!
Post reply on HN