3 ms·

It is not really the same as LLMs. I wouldn't call it AI. And I wouldn't say "makes up". I work in this field and this is certainly based also in part on my re

by uecker 4mo ago

It is not really the same as LLMs. I wouldn't call it AI. And I wouldn't say "makes up". I work in this field and this is certainly based also in part on my research.

lostlogin 4mo ago
‘Makes up’ is inaccurate for sure. But it’s not strictly true to call it acquired data either. After years of collecting artifacts and errors, I have more and more respect for the tool. But it’s jarring. I open a sequence, decrease the acquired resolution, add the AI and get a scan that’s quicker and higher resolution. It’s an amazing time to be an MR tech.
- uecker 4mo ago
  It is amazing. It is the result of two decades of research in image reconstruction algorithms. The machine learning is part of it, but that it is sold as "AI" has probably more to do with marketing.
  - lostlogin 4mo ago
    It certainly has a lot of marketing behind it. https://marketing.webassets.siemens-healthineers.com/2861d15b73d6b450/717822286611/MR-Deep-Resolve-Basics-Infographic-USA-2022-HOOD05162003301480.PDF https://marketing.webassets.siemens-healthineers.com/2861d15...
  - fluidcruft 4mo ago
    I haven't seen it marketed as "AI" by GE, Siemens or Philips. They usually gesture at "deep learning" or "compressed sensing". No radiologist is buying "AI" scanners. Radiologists are probably among the most jaded of an audience about the word "AI" due to decades of undelivered promises. AI is synonymous with "worthless trash" to them, not to mention everyone says "AI" is going to put them out of work. lol
microgpt 4mo ago
Super-resolution is certainly distinct from hallucinating - it just rearranged data that was already there to make it easier for the human eye to see - but should be used with care. I can easily imagine that an upscaling algorithm makes it so a certain defect is clearly not present, when the source image is ambiguous (which the radiologist would have noticed), and in reality the defect is present.
- shiandow 4mo ago
  I would definitely be wary using the more advanced super resolution schemes. It took some work preventing it from drawing faces everywhere. MRI is already a form of compressed sensing, I would much prefer statistical forms of super resolution to ones based on training data. Even if it is only trained on MRIs it will see some noise and plausibly expand it into whatever disease fits.

by uecker 4mo ago

It is not really the same as LLMs. I wouldn't call it AI. And I wouldn't say "makes up". I work in this field and this is certainly based also in part on my research.

lostlogin 4mo ago

‘Makes up’ is inaccurate for sure. But it’s not strictly true to call it acquired data either. After years of collecting artifacts and errors, I have more and more respect for the tool. But it’s jarring. I open a sequence, decrease the acquired resolution, add the AI and get a scan that’s quicker and higher resolution. It’s an amazing time to be an MR tech.

uecker 4mo ago
It is amazing. It is the result of two decades of research in image reconstruction algorithms. The machine learning is part of it, but that it is sold as "AI" has probably more to do with marketing.
- lostlogin 4mo ago
  It certainly has a lot of marketing behind it. https://marketing.webassets.siemens-healthineers.com/2861d15b73d6b450/717822286611/MR-Deep-Resolve-Basics-Infographic-USA-2022-HOOD05162003301480.PDF https://marketing.webassets.siemens-healthineers.com/2861d15...
- fluidcruft 4mo ago
  I haven't seen it marketed as "AI" by GE, Siemens or Philips. They usually gesture at "deep learning" or "compressed sensing". No radiologist is buying "AI" scanners. Radiologists are probably among the most jaded of an audience about the word "AI" due to decades of undelivered promises. AI is synonymous with "worthless trash" to them, not to mention everyone says "AI" is going to put them out of work. lol

microgpt 4mo ago

Super-resolution is certainly distinct from hallucinating - it just rearranged data that was already there to make it easier for the human eye to see - but should be used with care. I can easily imagine that an upscaling algorithm makes it so a certain defect is clearly not present, when the source image is ambiguous (which the radiologist would have noticed), and in reality the defect is present.

shiandow 4mo ago
I would definitely be wary using the more advanced super resolution schemes. It took some work preventing it from drawing faces everywhere. MRI is already a form of compressed sensing, I would much prefer statistical forms of super resolution to ones based on training data. Even if it is only trained on MRIs it will see some noise and plausibly expand it into whatever disease fits.