5 ms·

Biomedical imaging at one-thousandth the cost

70 points by chmaynard 11y ago

knlje 11y ago
The lack of actual biomedical imaging examples in the post reminds me of another much hyped technique called Electron Impedance Tomography. It also works in theory and even with simple experimental test cases but has not spawned any concrete products due to hardships in clinical operation (magic parameters, etc.)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
Rubu 11y ago
Full paper: https://www.osapublishing.org/optica/abstract.cfm?uri=optica-2-11-965 https://www.osapublishing.org/optica/abstract.cfm?uri=optica...
gloves 11y ago
Cynical view - can we expect the manufacturer of the $100,000 machine to be sponsoring (buying out) this research any time soon?
- mikeyouse 11y ago
  I think that's needlessly conspiratorial, the more likely (cynical) outcome is that the use case for scans dramatically rises now that they're so cheap, so the net payment to the supplier doesn't really change.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 11y ago
    Not to mention that it's entirely possible to be even more profitable if you can offer equipment at different price points. A smart manufacturer will take advantage of this.
- petewailes 11y ago
  Short answer: not really. The technology and the way it's being applied is easily replicable without a lot of R&D money. There's also a level of detail resolution that this lacks, so whilst it's great for a quick and dirty look, it's not got the power of serious machinery. That being said, I expect we'll see a v2 of this, based on more dedicated purpose hardware, which would reduce the cost down to the low four or even possibly mid three figures in the not too distant future. It's a genuinely interesting development. Source: best friend works in this field, so whilst I'm not an expert, I have more than passing familiarity with this.
- digikata 11y ago
  I wonder if the $100,000 machine cost vs $100 sensor cost is mixing apples and oranges. Maybe the $100 is just hardware, while the $100,000 represents hardware, a repeatable process to manufacture the hardware, the costs of certifying the design, the particular instance hardware and the process that manufactured it, etc... This doesn't mean that in the end a lower cost imaging capability isn't possible.
roghummal 11y ago
Tits or gtfo?
- dang 11y ago
  Please don't do this here.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

70 points by chmaynard 11y ago

knlje 11y ago

The lack of actual biomedical imaging examples in the post reminds me of another much hyped technique called Electron Impedance Tomography. It also works in theory and even with simple experimental test cases but has not spawned any concrete products due to hardships in clinical operation (magic parameters, etc.)

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

Rubu 11y ago

Full paper: https://www.osapublishing.org/optica/abstract.cfm?uri=optica-2-11-965 https://www.osapublishing.org/optica/abstract.cfm?uri=optica...

gloves 11y ago

Cynical view - can we expect the manufacturer of the $100,000 machine to be sponsoring (buying out) this research any time soon?

mikeyouse 11y ago
I think that's needlessly conspiratorial, the more likely (cynical) outcome is that the use case for scans dramatically rises now that they're so cheap, so the net payment to the supplier doesn't really change.
- HeyLaughingBoy 11y ago
  Not to mention that it's entirely possible to be even more profitable if you can offer equipment at different price points. A smart manufacturer will take advantage of this.
petewailes 11y ago
Short answer: not really. The technology and the way it's being applied is easily replicable without a lot of R&D money. There's also a level of detail resolution that this lacks, so whilst it's great for a quick and dirty look, it's not got the power of serious machinery. That being said, I expect we'll see a v2 of this, based on more dedicated purpose hardware, which would reduce the cost down to the low four or even possibly mid three figures in the not too distant future. It's a genuinely interesting development. Source: best friend works in this field, so whilst I'm not an expert, I have more than passing familiarity with this.
digikata 11y ago
I wonder if the $100,000 machine cost vs $100 sensor cost is mixing apples and oranges. Maybe the $100 is just hardware, while the $100,000 represents hardware, a repeatable process to manufacture the hardware, the costs of certifying the design, the particular instance hardware and the process that manufactured it, etc... This doesn't mean that in the end a lower cost imaging capability isn't possible.

roghummal 11y ago

Tits or gtfo?

dang 11y ago
Please don't do this here.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]