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

81–90 of 159 posts

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#81

Post by fnordpiglet »

op00to wrote: post #69
elektropionir wrote: post #64

It is just weird that papers like this can be published. "Deep learning signal prediction effectively eliminated EMI signals, enabling clear imaging without shielding." - this means that they have found a way to remove random noise, which if true, should be the truly revolutionary claim in this paper. If the "EMI" is not random you can just filter it so you don't need what they are doing. If it isn't random, whatever…

It would suck if lesions or tumors look like noise.

Except there are other uses for an MRI and something that doesn’t require super conductors would be pretty awesome and deployable to places that lack the infra to support a complex machine depending on near absolute zero temperatures and the associated complexities.

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#82

Post by enriquto »

UberFly wrote: post #73
bawolff wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A camera is supposed to take pictures of what it sees. If people wanted cameras to actually take what it sees, then we wouldn't have autofocus, photoshop or instagram filters. The goal of a cell phone camera is to capture what you are experiencing, not to literally record what light strikes the cmos chip.

A camera takes a picture of what it sees. What comes next is a different thing all together.

> A camera takes a picture of what it sees.

All images taken with digital cameras have been filtered by a pipeline of advanced algorithms. Nobody ever looks at "what the camera sees". What kind of savage would look at an image before demosaicing the Bayer pattern? (Except from the people who work in demosaicing, of course.)

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#83

Post by fnordpiglet »

azalemeth wrote: post #77
elektropionir wrote: post #64

It is just weird that papers like this can be published. "Deep learning signal prediction effectively eliminated EMI signals, enabling clear imaging without shielding." - this means that they have found a way to remove random noise, which if true, should be the truly revolutionary claim in this paper. If the "EMI" is not random you can just filter it so you don't need what they are doing. If it isn't random, whatever…

I'm a professional MR physicist. I genuinely think the profession is hugely up the hype curve with "AI" and to a far lesser extent low field. It's also worth saying that the rigorous, "proper" journal in the field is Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, run by the international society of magnetic resonance in medicine -- and that papers in nature or science generally nowadays tend to be at the extreme gimmicky end of the…

Would it be easier to deploy devices like this to developing counties without the infrastructure to support liquid helium distribution? I imagine a much simpler device WRT exotic cooling and distribution of material requirements is a plus. Couple that with the scarcity and non-renewable nature of helium, maybe using devices like this at scale for gross MRI imagery makes sense?

The AI used here as I read it is a generative approach trying to specifically compensate for EMI artifacts rather than a physics model and it likely wouldn’t be doing macro changes like sneezes to knees, no?

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#84

Post by wtallis »

bawolff wrote: post #71
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. If people wanted cameras to actually take what it sees, then we wouldn't have autofocus, photoshop or instagram filters. The goal of a cell phone camera is to capture what you are experiencing, not to literally record what light strikes the cmos chip.

> If people wanted cameras to actually take what it sees, then we wouldn't have autofocus,

Bad example. Autofocus makes changes to the light that goes into the camera, not just the data that comes out.

> photoshop or instagram filters

Bad examples. Those both give the user a before-and-after comparison so the user can decide what kind of alterations are reasonable or desirable.

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#86

Post by willis936 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #54
sieste wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Immortalized in Super Troopers (2001).

https://youtu.be/KiqkclCJsZs

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#87

Post by sneak »

ed312 wrote: post #51
vhcr wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There was the small complication of the fact that the moon texture that Samsung got caught putting onto moon-shaped objects in photos is, of course, the same side of the same moon.

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#88

Post by bone_slide »

azalemeth wrote: post #77
elektropionir wrote: post #64

It is just weird that papers like this can be published. "Deep learning signal prediction effectively eliminated EMI signals, enabling clear imaging without shielding." - this means that they have found a way to remove random noise, which if true, should be the truly revolutionary claim in this paper. If the "EMI" is not random you can just filter it so you don't need what they are doing. If it isn't random, whatever…

I'm a professional MR physicist. I genuinely think the profession is hugely up the hype curve with "AI" and to a far lesser extent low field. It's also worth saying that the rigorous, "proper" journal in the field is Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, run by the international society of magnetic resonance in medicine -- and that papers in nature or science generally nowadays tend to be at the extreme gimmicky end of the…

As one of the people that look at the images, this is the best comment in the thread.

Lots of AI nonsense permeating radiology right now, which seems to be fairly effective click bait and an easy way to generate hype and headlines.

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#89

Post by bone_slide »

eig wrote: post #28
alwa wrote: post #12

I can’t access the full paper, but from the abstract, is it accurate that they’re using ML techniques to synthesize higher-quality and higher-resolution imagery, and that’s the basis for their claim that it’s comparable to the output of a conventional MRI scan? Do clinicians really prefer that the computer make normative guesses to “clean up” the scan, versus working with the imagery reflecting the actual measurement…

I can say that most radiologists would not want a computer trying to fix poor scan data. If the underlying data is bad, they would have recommend an orthogonal imaging abnormality. "I don't know" is a possible response radiologists can give. Trying to add training data to "clean up" an image would bias the read towards "normal".

Spot on. When I can't interpret a study due to artifact, I say that in my report.

Let's say there's a CTA chest that is limited because the patient breathed while the scan was being acquired, I need to let the ordering clinician know that the study is not diagnostic, and recommend an alternative.

If AI eliminates the artifact by filling in expected but not actually acquired data, I am screwed and the patient is screwed.

Re: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging at 0.05 Tesla

#90

Post by thsksbd »

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…

Some of us want a record of what was, not a hallucination of what might have or could have been.

Courts, for example. Forensic science was revolutionized by widespread adoption of photography leading to a reduction of the importance given to witnesses. Who also hallucinate what might have happened.

Post reply on HN