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

781–790 of 927 posts

Re: Midjourney Medical

#781

Post by idontwantthis »

tmhrtly wrote: post #571

> You want as much data as you can get about your health as quickly and as cheaply as possible. In other words, you want a technology optimized for getting as many “megabytes per second per dollar” of information about your body. This is so far from my vision of what I want from healthcare. I want a healthcare system that is optimised around A) proactively keeping me healthy, and B) reactively helping get back to hea…

All I want is the safety that, if something is wrong, treating it won’t bankrupt me.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#782

Post by pigpop »

KaiserPro wrote: post #699
aeonik wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't we do full body scans, learn about these "quirks", and document them in the wider science literature? I understand there are many benign tumors that doctors prefer to ignore in people, but eventually when scanning becomes portable and safe enough having regular access to scans could really help a lot of conditions.

Good question! Full body scanning is expensive, and in some cases not that higher resolution. CT full body scans are cheap and high resolution, but you are being blasted with Xrays for long periods. So there is a not inconsiderable health implication. To get good data, ideally you need to have a longitudinal study, as in you measure people monthly/weekly and then correlate that to life outcomes. The ethical issue is…

The entire point of this machine seems to be to do non-invasive scans that don't have the type of side effects that constant CT scans would have and which are vastly cheaper and easier to do than MRI so that you can collect longitudinal data on any/all individuals.

Finding "lumps and bumps" or incidentalomas may be much less of a problem if you can keep a close eye on them without using CT or MRI, maybe your doctor would want a follow up MRI as a closer look but if it seems likely benign they could easily recommend you to just keep scanning with this ultrasound machine and only get another MRI or biopsy if it seems to develop in a malignant way.

The mistrust of private individuals and companies is a harmful belief when it comes to the development of new medical technology. Many groundbreaking devices were developed through the efforts of individuals, including the MRI.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#783

Post by bonsai_spool »

senordevnyc wrote: post #743
bonsai_spool wrote: post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’d want to see the data https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ Go right ahead!

lol, hilarious. I actually don't think we have the data available that I want, and even if we do, as many others here have pointed out, intentionally sticking our heads in the sand forever makes no sense.

> lol, hilarious.

> I actually don't think we have the data available that I want

I get the sense you haven't looked...

> intentionally sticking our heads in the sand forever makes no sense.

Because you make statements like this instead of citing the extensive literature on this question.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#784

Post by GTP »

telesilla wrote: post #630
GTP wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but in this case, there was a good reason for the additional tests: a high-risk pregnancy. And still, the outcome was stress for nothing. Now, imagine thousands of perfectly healthy people doing full-body scans every week just because they can. This actually carries the risk of jamming real health care, because those perfectly healthy people will undergo additional clinical tests for nothing.

Imagine all the data that gets us towards those scans actually being meaningful. Don't treat them like scans to find problems but scans to learn from, collectively.

As I wrote in replies to other similar comments, this would be the case if this technology was presented as an opportunity for researchers to run more large-scale studies. This isn't however the case, it is instead presented as a shiny toy for fancy spas.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#785

Post by IAmGraydon »

JackFr wrote: post #660
iDon wrote: post #541

> ... It starts by stepping into a shallow pool of golden light. > ... Together they act as both a choir and an audience I think I'm not the target audience. I guess they are going to need to sign up a lot of people, to train on their scans + their medical outcomes. So the article is talking to people who will get enthused by it, which is more difficult after the question of 23AndMe data sale.

I’m a weirdo who vaguely enjoys my MRIs. I’m moderately claustrophobic, but they still don’t really bother me. And I love the warming feeling that makes me feel like I’m getting microwaved.

What warming feeling? An MRI shouldn't really make you feel warm unless they're pushing IV contrast.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#786

Post by fragmede »

multjoy wrote: post #473
ACCount37 wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern LLMs routinely beat human doctors at diagnosing "extremely rare edge cases". They have unmatched breadth of knowledge by default, and can maintain attention across entire medical histories.

Citation very much needed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1iz4iwm/chatgpt_is...

or

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1oesnix/chatgpt_di...

or if you prefer from this site,

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43171639

and

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42999632

If you were looking for a published paper or something more official though, I don't have one.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#787

Post by pigpop »

mapkkk wrote: post #645
aeonik wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't we do full body scans, learn about these "quirks", and document them in the wider science literature? I understand there are many benign tumors that doctors prefer to ignore in people, but eventually when scanning becomes portable and safe enough having regular access to scans could really help a lot of conditions.

We can and do full body scans. Typically in the context of research, or for focus/metastasis search in current clinical settings. The problem is that, in clinical practice, with every imaging technology there are trade-offs. Just because we see something out of the ordinary in a scan doesn't immediately tell us whether it's pathology, pathology worth investigating/treating, or if it's just a normal physiological vari…

I understand the argument but imagine if it were applied to other nascent technologies like the microscope, which incidentally was also viewed with suspicion by doctors who (accurately) cited flaws in early models such as chromatic and spherical aberration. Thankfully, many people persisted in developing it including non-medical polymaths like Robert Hooke. I recognize this may cause some headaches for doctors dealing with insistent patients but I doubt it will be a permanent problem as the technology develops further and becomes more widespread.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#788

Post by geor9e »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #646
geor9e wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you stand there for 60 seconds. If every hospital had one, even if they sat idle 90% of the day, thats enough to hit that target.

A billion hours ago, human life appeared on earth. A billion minutes ago, Christianity emerged. A billion seconds ago, the Beatles changed music forever. A billion scans ago was last month? It does not work this way.

Do you need the math typed out?

Re: Midjourney Medical

#789

Post by hawkice »

nihonde wrote: post #264
tptacek wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's the healthcare industry's fault, they're brainwashing me into not getting more procedures. Sounds very plausible.

Insurance companies dislike paying for procedures instead of passively collecting premiums. Not sure how you missed that.

Exposing asymptomatic potential issues leads to medical care that often does not meet out standards for medical tradeoffs. Chemo is nasty, even the most minor surgery has risks. We endure the risks because we are addressing either major health issues or other dire uncertainties. Using our heavy duty treatments for issues without any symptoms at all would, normally, cause the patient suffering in excess of what would be justified. Chemo is a life saver when it's saving lives -- if the alternative is no symptoms, it just ruins your life for a profoundly uncertain upside.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#790

Post by FriedPickles »

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…

> ultrasound is not CT

They're using "CT" in its literal sense: tomography*, using computers. In this case, ultrasound is the penetrating wave rather than x-ray. It is of course a very different thing than what the medical world knows as "CT" today.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomography

Post reply on HN