4 ms·

How did X-Rays gain mass adoption?

13 points by tinymagician 1y ago

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
JohnMakin 1y ago
Otherwise interesting post that caused a little bit of confusion for me, as the dates listed at the start of the article are in the mid 1980's, when I think it meant to be the mid 1890's.
- dhosek 1y ago
  It kind of makes me wonder whether this person used ChatGPT or something along those lines to create it. I stopped reading when it was clear that they had let such glaring errors be published in the first paragraph.
  - bawolff 1y ago
    Otoh, reversing digits in numbers is a super common mistake that humans make. If anything i feel like this type of error points to human authorship. Or at least it would be if they did it once, but they made the same mistake multiple times which is bizarre. I dont know what to think about that.
  - auserisme 1y ago
    This seems very clearly written by AI to me. There are multiple grammatical or flow errors (see the references to "bullet"). There is a very ChatGPT "in summary" point section.
    - tinymagician 1y ago
      The dates are my fault, thanks to those who pointed it out, its been fixed. I sort of write the way my brain thinks so the in summary is just my way of reminding myself of what's going on. I used an LLM to gather sources but wrote it myself. The writing having flow errors/grammar is more just a function of poor proofreading on my end - my brain skips words and flow sometimes. I'm not a great writer. I see your point with the "bullet" namely - Some surgeons doubted the image quality, felt bullet could be left safely in the body, and worried about patient privacy (seeing through clothes). It should read "Some surgeons doubted the image quality. Others felt that the bullet could be left safely in the body and worried about patient privacy (seeing through clothes). The article has been updated. Thanks for everyone's comments, I appreciate them.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
lawlessone 1y ago
>The expense of the machine costs only about $400 while a good coil is valued at from $200 to $600. But, of course, this need not be considered by physicians, since all are wealthy This is interesting. Would doctors build/assemble their own machines? Definitely not the case with newer forms of imaging.
- retrac 1y ago
  As the quote says, you only really need two components: an induction coil and a Crookes tube. If connecting the two counts as building their own machine, then yes many early doctors did build their own. An induction coil was an off-the-shelf part (as much as anything electrical was in the 1890s). The Crookes tube was initially a custom piece, but workshops started turning them out as soon as the Roentgen pictures caught on. Maybe worth pointing out that both doctors and laboratory scientists historically had a close relationship with glass blowers and glass work. Many doctors back then would have known someone who was able to make them a Crookes tube (often themselves). A sufficiently hard vacuum pump was I think the trickiest part?
trhway 1y ago
similarly waiting for mass adoption of iPhone based ultrasound and some kind of laser computational tomography-interferometry (capable to see at least few centimeter deep). We're probably can do iPhone bases X-ray too - the CCDs are very sensitive so the dose at dental Xrays is already much lower than film-based, and may be we can go even lower with small discharge device (at the level of unrolling a duct tape roll) Naturally, add in some diagnostic AI, and you get tricorder :)
margalabargala 1y ago
I'm not sure I agree with the premise that cfDNA has not reached widespread acceptance. For example, 94% of OBGYNs in the US that have training for high risk pregnancies, offer NIPT tests [0]. Basically anyone in the US who is pregnant can order a NIPT test for very little money. [0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4303457/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4303457/
- tinymagician 1y ago
  For prenatal care sure we have adopted. I was thinking more along the lines of cancer treatment and detection.
cortesoft 1y ago
I had no idea X-rays were invented in 1986!
- xattt 1y ago
  Dr. Wilhem Röntgen was moon-walking with joy.
- saulpw 1y ago
  They weren't! X-rays were the first step towards nukes. 1895 for X-rays and 50 years later in 1945 for the atomic bomb.
ulfw 1y ago
What is the point of these hallucinationed AI blobs the internet is filling up with. None of the dates in this "article" are correct and are off by a hundred years. Worthless and don't waste your time reading it. Go to ChatGPT if you're bored and want more lies and invented bullshit Brave world we live in now
- tinymagician 1y ago
  Sorry man, I brain-farted and mixed up the 9 and the 8 (1986 --> 1896). Wasn't written by chatgpt though
tzs 1y ago
> The public was fascinated by this technology and studios offered the public “views of their bones” and “shoe fitting” images For shoe fitting there were actually x-ray machines in shoe stores. They were widely used, especially when buying shoes for children. Wikipedia has a nice description [1]: > The shoe-fitting fluoroscope, also sold under the names X-ray Shoe Fitter, Pedoscope and Foot-o-scope, was an X-ray fluoroscope machine installed in shoe stores from the 1920s until about the 1970s. The device was a metal construction covered in finished wood, approximately 4 feet (1.2 m) tall in the shape of short column, with a ledge with an opening through which the standing customer (adult or child) would put their feet and look through a viewing porthole at the top of the fluoroscope down at the X-ray view of the feet and shoes. Two other viewing portholes on either side enabled the parent and a sales assistant to observe the toes being wiggled to show how much room for the toes there was inside the shoe. The bones of the feet were clearly visible, as was the outline of the shoe, including the stitching around the edges. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope

13 points by tinymagician 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

Otherwise interesting post that caused a little bit of confusion for me, as the dates listed at the start of the article are in the mid 1980's, when I think it meant to be the mid 1890's.

dhosek 1y ago
It kind of makes me wonder whether this person used ChatGPT or something along those lines to create it. I stopped reading when it was clear that they had let such glaring errors be published in the first paragraph.
- bawolff 1y ago
  Otoh, reversing digits in numbers is a super common mistake that humans make. If anything i feel like this type of error points to human authorship. Or at least it would be if they did it once, but they made the same mistake multiple times which is bizarre. I dont know what to think about that.
- auserisme 1y ago
  This seems very clearly written by AI to me. There are multiple grammatical or flow errors (see the references to "bullet"). There is a very ChatGPT "in summary" point section.
  - tinymagician 1y ago
    The dates are my fault, thanks to those who pointed it out, its been fixed. I sort of write the way my brain thinks so the in summary is just my way of reminding myself of what's going on. I used an LLM to gather sources but wrote it myself. The writing having flow errors/grammar is more just a function of poor proofreading on my end - my brain skips words and flow sometimes. I'm not a great writer. I see your point with the "bullet" namely - Some surgeons doubted the image quality, felt bullet could be left safely in the body, and worried about patient privacy (seeing through clothes). It should read "Some surgeons doubted the image quality. Others felt that the bullet could be left safely in the body and worried about patient privacy (seeing through clothes). The article has been updated. Thanks for everyone's comments, I appreciate them.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

lawlessone 1y ago

>The expense of the machine costs only about $400 while a good coil is valued at from $200 to $600. But, of course, this need not be considered by physicians, since all are wealthy This is interesting. Would doctors build/assemble their own machines? Definitely not the case with newer forms of imaging.

retrac 1y ago
As the quote says, you only really need two components: an induction coil and a Crookes tube. If connecting the two counts as building their own machine, then yes many early doctors did build their own. An induction coil was an off-the-shelf part (as much as anything electrical was in the 1890s). The Crookes tube was initially a custom piece, but workshops started turning them out as soon as the Roentgen pictures caught on. Maybe worth pointing out that both doctors and laboratory scientists historically had a close relationship with glass blowers and glass work. Many doctors back then would have known someone who was able to make them a Crookes tube (often themselves). A sufficiently hard vacuum pump was I think the trickiest part?

trhway 1y ago

similarly waiting for mass adoption of iPhone based ultrasound and some kind of laser computational tomography-interferometry (capable to see at least few centimeter deep). We're probably can do iPhone bases X-ray too - the CCDs are very sensitive so the dose at dental Xrays is already much lower than film-based, and may be we can go even lower with small discharge device (at the level of unrolling a duct tape roll) Naturally, add in some diagnostic AI, and you get tricorder :)

margalabargala 1y ago

I'm not sure I agree with the premise that cfDNA has not reached widespread acceptance. For example, 94% of OBGYNs in the US that have training for high risk pregnancies, offer NIPT tests [0]. Basically anyone in the US who is pregnant can order a NIPT test for very little money. [0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4303457/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4303457/

tinymagician 1y ago
For prenatal care sure we have adopted. I was thinking more along the lines of cancer treatment and detection.

cortesoft 1y ago

I had no idea X-rays were invented in 1986!

xattt 1y ago
Dr. Wilhem Röntgen was moon-walking with joy.
saulpw 1y ago
They weren't! X-rays were the first step towards nukes. 1895 for X-rays and 50 years later in 1945 for the atomic bomb.

ulfw 1y ago

What is the point of these hallucinationed AI blobs the internet is filling up with. None of the dates in this "article" are correct and are off by a hundred years. Worthless and don't waste your time reading it. Go to ChatGPT if you're bored and want more lies and invented bullshit Brave world we live in now

tinymagician 1y ago
Sorry man, I brain-farted and mixed up the 9 and the 8 (1986 --> 1896). Wasn't written by chatgpt though

tzs 1y ago

> The public was fascinated by this technology and studios offered the public “views of their bones” and “shoe fitting” images For shoe fitting there were actually x-ray machines in shoe stores. They were widely used, especially when buying shoes for children. Wikipedia has a nice description [1]: > The shoe-fitting fluoroscope, also sold under the names X-ray Shoe Fitter, Pedoscope and Foot-o-scope, was an X-ray fluoroscope machine installed in shoe stores from the 1920s until about the 1970s. The device was a metal construction covered in finished wood, approximately 4 feet (1.2 m) tall in the shape of short column, with a ledge with an opening through which the standing customer (adult or child) would put their feet and look through a viewing porthole at the top of the fluoroscope down at the X-ray view of the feet and shoes. Two other viewing portholes on either side enabled the parent and a sales assistant to observe the toes being wiggled to show how much room for the toes there was inside the shoe. The bones of the feet were clearly visible, as was the outline of the shoe, including the stitching around the edges. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope