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

791–800 of 927 posts

Re: Midjourney Medical

#791

Post by cseleborg »

moduspol wrote: post #750
cseleborg wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about being against technology. It's that we know the simple rules that will keep us healthy most of the time, and they don't need any technology at all. Eat healthy meals. Exercise. Get enough sleep. Get enough rest. Don't smoke. Don't drink alcohol. Don't do drugs. Spend enough time with people. Serve others. Spend time outside. Midjourney Medical looks amazingly cool. But it, and megabytes of data, is not…

We only learned how to do a lot of those things because we gathered and analyzed data to find out how best to do them! "Eat healthy meals" means something completely different today than 10, 20, or 50 years ago. How you exercise matters a lot. Smoking wasn't always considered unhealthy, nor was drinking. These "simple rules" and what they actually mean have been refined quite a bit. You figure out this stuff by gathe…

True, we conducted science, part of which involved gathering and analysing data, to refine those "simple rules", though I'd say they've been pretty stable for a long time.

Both our unhealthy habits, and the "simple rules" to keep us healthy, have been around for decades. Building devices that give us gigabytes of data won't change anything. Dr Peter Attia makes a compelling argument in his book "Outlive" that science, as it is structured now, has achieved miracles when it comes to injuries and infectious diseases, but has been more or less powerless, for entirely systemic reasons, to do anything about neurodegenerative and cardiovascular diseases or against cancer and diabetes. His book is well worth reading to understand his argument--but the gist of it is that those require lifestyle changes.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#792

Post by pigpop »

cityofdelusion wrote: post #722
aeonik wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They'll know whether they're getting bigger or not. Pretty much the same for if you have a lump just under your skin that you can see and feel but this would allow you to see the ones further inside. So you just have to take the same attitude and advice towards them that a doctor would give you about the surface level lumps. What's the difference?

Re: Midjourney Medical

#793

Post by mNovak »

intoXbox wrote: post #362
mNovak wrote: post #254

This 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?

The water is a clever impedance matching trick. The contrast in density between air and human flesh is high, so the waves all reflect off the surface rather than penetrating and reflecting off the internal structures we care about.

That's why normally you're concerned with really good transducer contact (squeezing out any air) or use a gel to match impedance.

I'm a bit rusty on CT, but I'd guess the resolution is proportional to the total number of transducers in the array (e.g. larger sensing surface equals tighter resolution) since you're basically taking a Fourier transform of the incident wave.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#794

Post by pigpop »

dperfect wrote: post #649
GTP wrote: post #560

I find the technology side intriguing and worth a deeper dive. But I'm not convinced about their view of having people casually going to a spa every week and getting a full body scan. AFAIK, some doctors tend to avoid full-body scans. The reason is that each body is different and has its own quirks. If you do a scan for no reason other than "I can do it fast", chances are that the scan will show something unusual. Bu…

Overdiagnosis can be a problem. On the flip side, I wonder if adding the time dimension to the data (i.e., you could realistically have scans from every few weeks over the course of years) could significantly change that. Instead of looking at a single snapshot of a person, you're now looking at trends over time. We probably don't have the analytical tools to effectively evaluate medical imaging with that time dimens…

I agree, hopefully it becomes just like any other cheap and easy measurement like blood pressure. Most of the time, small changes and variations will be determined to be normal but having a record and a measurement allows you to determine what is abnormal or a symptom of a disease. It's the difference between having a measurement and having nothing at all (if you never got a scan with CT or MRI).

Re: Midjourney Medical

#795

Post by queuebert »

vmg12 wrote: post #726
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?

Statistically overdetection leads to poorer outcomes because interventions have a risk as well. That's why everyone doesn't get a yearly full body CT scan, for example. The current guidelines are based on optimizing for maximum good, and believe it or not some things are best not known about because the risk of dying from it is about the same as the risk of the treatment.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#796

Post by Jtsummers »

geor9e wrote: post #788
1970-01-01 wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In order for 50k scanners to perform 1 billion scans in a month, they need to be run nearly 24/7. It will require (in a 30 day month) an average of 129.6 seconds per scan, including both the 60 second scan time and moving people on and off the scanner surface. You get just over a minute to move someone off, clean the system, and get the next person onto the platform. If you neglect cleaning the system, and everyone is ready to go, then this is just barely possible if it's 100% reliable.

If they sat idle for 90% of the time, they wouldn't have enough time for the 60 second scan, let alone moving people on and off the platform. The math for their claimed target does not work.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#797

Post by pigpop »

jappgar wrote: post #613
GTP wrote: post #560

I find the technology side intriguing and worth a deeper dive. But I'm not convinced about their view of having people casually going to a spa every week and getting a full body scan. AFAIK, some doctors tend to avoid full-body scans. The reason is that each body is different and has its own quirks. If you do a scan for no reason other than "I can do it fast", chances are that the scan will show something unusual. Bu…

Another reason is that we don't actually know what negative effects regular "scans" might have. Actually in some cases we do know. Regular xrays are harmful, for example.

As crude as it sounds, you don't know until you try.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#798

Post by trogdor »

jmhmd wrote: post #765
VikingCoder wrote: post #757

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They spent a lot of time selling the spa, and not a lot of time showing us the data.

That's because there isn't any data yet, at least not enough from real patients to be meaningful. I would love to see some of the raw imaging data they have generated though, if that's what you mean.

There also isn’t a spa yet.

Re: Midjourney Medical

#799

Post by pigpop »

raindropm wrote: post #365
keiferski wrote: post #348

I 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…

Personally, I think the bigger problem is successful individuals and companies deciding to just stick with their original business model and squeeze every drop of money out of it for their own personal enrichment.

God forbid someone should try to do things to benefit society with their fortune.

Post reply on HN