> Moreover, it seems that the ability to provide fast (in seconds to minutes) analysis implies powerful computational ability and data network. Finally, the dat

> Moreover, it seems that the ability to provide fast (in seconds to minutes) analysis implies powerful computational ability and data network. Finally, the data acquisition right now takes more or less 20 to 45 minutes depending on the patient and the targeted area, which means the promised analysis quickness is not such a real pro. In surgical pathology, the patient is still under surgery while a pathologist makes a rapid, preliminary diagnosis on fresh tissue. This can be done in under 10 minutes, but typically takes 20-30 in practice -- the bulk of which time is spent flash-freezing and sectioning. Pathologists have only a few minutes to review after prep, so any digital augmentation technology must run on the order of a few minutes to be of use in guiding the surgery. This guidance may be crucial because many tumors cannot be characterized ahead of time due to the lack of non-invasive diagnostic tools (the most promising is gene profiling of bloodborne cells, but that is very challenging due to low circulating concentrations). Tumor type and grade are a large factor in a surgeon’s aggressiveness-vs-risk calculation, and this is especially true in brain tumors where cognitive damage poses a quality-of-life risk which must be weighed against potential survival gains. (not a pathologist, but I've done research, classifier, and software dev in the field -- very small, hands-on lab, so spent a huge amount of time in frozen section, OR, and with paths reviewing sections)