[HN Gopher] CT Scan of a Pumpkin ___________________________________________________________________ CT Scan of a Pumpkin Author : zdw Score : 348 points Date : 2021-10-31 14:48 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (randomfootage.homestead.com) (TXT) w3m dump (randomfootage.homestead.com) | sabujp wrote: | and for mri https://www.clovisopenmri.com/blog/512 | Grakel wrote: | No pumpkin | ufo wrote: | Number 13 might count, depending on the definition of | pumpkin. | cunthorpe wrote: | No upvote | landonxjames wrote: | Is "They did a CT scan on a pumpkin" the next evolution of "They | did surgery on a grape"[0]? | | [0] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/they-did-surgery-on-a-grape | resoluteteeth wrote: | Maybe it's the next evolution of doing an fMRI on a dead | salmon: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious- | brain/ignobe... | Kydlaw wrote: | The most powerful CT Scan has been unveil very recently, with a | magnet able to pull almost 12 teslas (where regular ones usually | go to 1,5 to 3 teslas)[1]. Source is in french, but you'll find a | similar video of... a pumpkin :) | | They explain in the article that pumpkins are used because they | share a similar shape and structure as well as water ratio as a | human head. They got the magnet from previous research efforts | from a research team dedicated to that domain (part of the french | research around nuclear and alternative energies). Instead of | trashing the 130t magnet, they proposed to adapt it for medical | imagery. It will know help research on the Alzheimer disease. | | https://www.francetvinfo.fr/sante/decouverte-scientifique/sc... | | Edit: format | nosianu wrote: | That's MRT - magnetic resonance imaging. CT scans - computed | tomography - use x-rays. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CT_scan | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_resonance_imaging | | The applications for both are slightly different. | | https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/154877#possible_ri... | | There is a nice course on edX (the content is free), | "Introduction to Biomedical Imaging", which teaches the basics | of the most common imaging technologies (also adds ultra-sounds | and radiology-based scans): | | https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-to-biomedical-imagin... | thangngoc89 wrote: | Those were high resolution slices of CT scan and nice | visualization as well. One can only hope human CT scans could | achieve this level of preciseness without increasing the | radiation dose. | lostlogin wrote: | > One can only hope human CT scans could achieve this level of | preciseness without increasing the radiation dose. | | It looks like a pretty standard scan to me and the article says | the protocol used is an extremity protocol. | | I work in radiology and various non-human things go though the | scanner from time to time - fruit, pets, fossils, broken | equipment that needs internal visualisation (sort of like the | patients). | superjan wrote: | Sorry to be such a bore but when scanning humans the images | should only be good enough to make a good diagnosis. If they | are better than needed, the wise thing to do is lower the | radiation exposure. | happyhardcore wrote: | Roughly how much higher is the dose required for this level of | detail than that which is considered safe for humans? | mertd wrote: | No level of radiation exposure is safe. How much of CT | radiation is considered acceptable depends on the | application. | lostlogin wrote: | Dose response being linear no threshold is the operating | assumption. Radiation hormesis may be a thing but it's | difficult to be certain at low doses. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis | lostlogin wrote: | As far as I can tell, it's not higher dose. | | > It was scanned on a GE Revolution CT machine. The scan was | performed using technique optimized for human extremities, | and employed very thin slice thickness of 600 microns. | thaumasiotes wrote: | > Next, it's obvious how much air there is in a pumpkin. All the | black on these source images represent air, quite a bit of its | overall volume. | | This made me really curious. The pumpkin is airtight and develops | entirely within that airtight seal. It's full of gas pockets. How | similar are the undisturbed contents of those gas pockets to | atmospheric air? | heavyset_go wrote: | I wouldn't be surprised if gas exchange occurred through | membranes, so that the gas inside is the same composition as | the gas outside. | emmelaich wrote: | I'm pretty sure these pumpkins have been made to have more air | for Halloween. Much easier to carve out. | | Everyday edible pumpkins have much more flesh. | GuB-42 wrote: | A pumpkin is not airtight. Like most living things, plants | breathe in O2 and breathe out CO2 (in addition to | photosynthesis which does the opposite). So the air inside a | pumpkin is most likely atmospheric air with less O2 and more | CO2, maybe other gasses that participate in the pumpkin | metabolism. | adrianmonk wrote: | As a partially texture-based eater, looking at these images makes | me feel triggered. | | But it also makes me feel grateful for food processors, blenders, | etc. that can puree pumpkin into delicious pie filling. | joelbondurant wrote: | This pre-science must be censored until ordained by the Science | Ministry. | jliptzin wrote: | I am considering whether to have a CT scan done of my heart. I am | 35 yo and healthy, but have bad history of heart disease in my | family. No current issues for me though. My doctor recommended I | do the scan just to see if I have any plaque buildup, but is this | not a lot of unnecessary radiation at a fairly young age? I hear | it is like getting 1,000 x-rays done. Can anyone qualified chime | in? | PragmaticPulp wrote: | The FDA has a great page on the topic with citations to medical | journals: https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting- | products/medical-x-ra... | | The short answer: | | > If you combine the natural risk of a fatal cancer and the | estimated risk from a 10 mSv CT scan, the total risk may | increase from 400 chances in 2000 to 401 chances in 2000. | | Your specific CT scan of the heart might be less than half of | the 10mSv dose used in this example so the radiation risk is | even lower. | lostlogin wrote: | Have a read up on what the dose is and what this equates to. | It's low, and importantly, the alternative tests are pretty | invasive. | | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4789203/ | superjan wrote: | For plaque buildup they normally do a quick low resolution scan | (to calculate an "agatson score"). I did not know by heart, but | according to webmd.com it's equivalent to 1 year background | radiation. Pretty and high resolution images like the pumpkin | above are possible but require more radiation. They should use | the simplest scan that answers the doctor's question. | | A good question to ask is 'why': if no treatment decision | depends on the outcome of the scan, the downsides can easily | outweigh the benefits. A healthy lifestyle is advisable no | matter what the scan says. | | I am no doctor. I work on software for cardiologists. | jliptzin wrote: | Thank you | pjerem wrote: | Better get some X-Rays than staying with unknown and untreated | desease. This could help you : | https://www.nuffieldhealth.com/article/radiation-exposure-fr... | | CT scans are way more radiative than your classical X-rays but | they are also way less radiative that anything that could be | really dangerous. | | You are way more prone to major heart issues if it's in your | family's genes and untreated than to have any issue with a ct- | scan. | jliptzin wrote: | Thanks, that does help | 323 wrote: | If you are in US, one thing to consider is the massive over- | prescription of medical tests in this country, due to legal | reasons - avoid being sued for missing a problem. | | You might want to consult with a UK doctor for example to see | if they also recommend a CT scan in your situation. | | https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/11/overkill-atul-... | bonyt wrote: | If you download the video and extract the frames (like, with | ffmpeg), and load it into 3d Slicer (slicer.org), you can | actually get a 3D reconstruction out of it! Out of a youtube | video of the slices! | | https://i.imgur.com/wmPQvfn.jpg | [deleted] | anewlanguage wrote: | I work with large-scale neuroscience imaging, and this is | exactly how we compress 3D image stacks (i.e. 3d volumes) | captured with confocal microscopes. Since adjacent frames are | usually quite similar, there's a ton of redundancy that H.265 | can exploit, and the compression ratios are amazing. For multi- | channel volumetric imaging, we use ffmpeg to encode each | channel as a movie and then combine all the channels into a | single HDF5 file. | robocat wrote: | Do you get 3D compression artifacts? | | I love the idea that you rotate a spacial dimension into a | time dimension, and after decompression you get artifacts | from the time dimension visualised in a space dimension | again. | anewlanguage wrote: | We don't get visible artifacts because we dialed-in the CRF | value to our data. But that sounds like a neat experiment | to try. | andbberger wrote: | FIJI plugin? | anewlanguage wrote: | Yes: https://github.com/fiji/H5J_Loader_Plugin | trombonechamp wrote: | Oh wow, this is a great idea. How do you deal with the lossy | compression? There must be a lossless codec which uses the | redundancy better than deflate? | anewlanguage wrote: | This format is meant for visualization in 3d, and even | though it's lossy, it's "visually lossless" for humans. We | to start with the archived lossless stacks (compressed with | bz2) for any reprocessing. | | What you're suggesting with a lossless movie codec would be | a great addition, we just haven't had the need for it yet. | DaftDank wrote: | I wonder if this would work for my hospital CT scans I've had | in the last ~5 years. They all come on a CD, with a software | program loaded onto it with the scans to view it in. It would | be cool to be able to 3d visualize it all | Pigalowda wrote: | Don't go through that much trouble! There's an easier | solution. | | You can download free radiology viewers RadiAnt (windows | compatible) or Osirix (Mac compatible). Your imaging is in | DICOM format probably and you can use Radiant to export all | of your slices into .jpg if you want. You can also do 3D | reconstructions of soft tissue, bone, lung, etc. | wtallis wrote: | The program in question (3D Slicer) is _also_ one of those | easier solutions. It can load DICOM files directly. | lostlogin wrote: | Horos (Mac) is another - I think it's the freeware version | of Osirix. | | You can find InteleViewer if you hunt about as well (Mac | and PC). | dylan604 wrote: | >Don't go through that much trouble! | | You realize this is HN where readers pride themselves on | the trouble that can be accomplished in a weekend. | | >There's an easier solution. | | But what else is one to do at the weekend? | spookthesunset wrote: | Try to turn it into an stl file, slice it and print it | :-) | dylan604 wrote: | Do this with a couple of "perfect" pumpkin shapes. Create | a way to 3D print these as a mold to make your own | "pumpkins" to be carved without all of the mess and able | to last longer through the season. No more petroleum | jelly, no more soaking them in the tub. | idiotsecant wrote: | >No more petroleum jelly, no more soaking them in the | tub. | | What. I feel like I am missing out on a whole field of | pumpkin science here that I was unaware of. | dylan604 wrote: | It's a plant. Think of it as a cut flower. After cutting | open a pumpkin, they are obviously no longer sealed. They | start to dry out. You can rub petroleum jelly all over | the carved sides to help slow down the drying out. You | can also soak them in the tub, and they will pull in some | of the water to help them come back into shape. | | There's all sort of things you can do to prolong things | once they've been cut/carved/etc. My mom was a florist | and designer. I've been in/around productions requiring | things to be preserved so items can be kept around as | long as possible. You just kind of pick up a thing or two | Turing_Machine wrote: | There are also various chemical solutions that you can | put on the pumpkin to make it last longer. However those | are not recommended if wildlife is around. Moose, in | particular, love pumpkins. I suspect deer are the same. | dylan604 wrote: | Sure the deer, but I don't want that stuff around me. | Better living through chemistry is something I'm trying | to avoid now that I can make my own choices about what | goes in, on, or around me. | jmkb wrote: | personally I'm looking forward to "this gourd does not | exist" | hprotagonist wrote: | there are many DICOM viewers available, ranging from the | fairly horrible plugins for imageJ to very sophisticated | things with maya or COMSOL or whatnot. | | OSIRX is often very good, though not free. | azalemeth wrote: | Horos is the FOSS version of Osirix and based on the same | original codebase, which lives on Github - c.f. | https://horosproject.org/download-horos/ | xvilka wrote: | Sadly, it's MacOS-only. Would be nice to have something | Qt or GTK-based. | wazoox wrote: | There are many free DICOM viewer in the | Ubuntu/Debian/Pop_OS repositories. I don't remember which | one I used, but at least some of them allow to visit your | organs in 3D :) | figomore wrote: | I recommend InVesalius. It's in Flathub | (https://flathub.org/apps/details/br.gov.cti.invesalius) | BadInformatics wrote: | You're in luck, because (assuming the scans are in a | compatible format), this is exactly what 3D Slicer was | designed for. | manucorporat wrote: | We have been working on an open source tech that works in the | browser and render 3D CTs and MRIs without installing any | software, check it out: | | https://openview.health | nick__m wrote: | When my wife when through invasive breast cancer some years | ago1, I got started with RadiAnt because it's easy to | construct a nice looking3d reconstruction, but I quickly hit | a ceiling what I was able to accomplish. | | With slicer I was able to produced compelling pictures to | highlight the objects of interest by using custom color | scales and transparency. For fun I also followed some | tutorial on bone segregation for 3d printing, something that | is clearly beyond the reach of RadiAnt. | | Still, I would recommend to learn the basics in RadiAnt by | trying to see what is in the written radiologist report2. You | will have to learn quite a bit of arcane terminology but I | found that process quite rewarding and strangely empowering. | | 1- 3 years after her last treatment she is still cancer free, | I hope it stays that way... | | 2- Ask for a copy of the report when you get the DICOM DVD. | If the scan was taken at a hospital they will probably | redirect you to the medical archives and it assuredly won't | be ready when you get the DVD but they can mail it to you. | tamaharbor wrote: | Happy Halloween! | h3mb3 wrote: | It certainly triggers my trypophobia! | nealabq wrote: | The pumpkin flowers have 5 petals, and the female flowers have 5 | stigma, but the seeds inside grow in 6 columns. Which I find | puzzling. | | Google brings up | https://threesixty360.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/the-mystery-o... | which points out a 3-fold rotational symmetry in the pumpkin. And | if you look, the 6 seed-columns are really 3 pairs of columns. | | Five and three seem less puzzling I supposed, because Fibonacci. | Still, I was expecting 5. | gus_massa wrote: | I'm confused too, but look at this photo in the article | http://randomfootage.homestead.com/pumpkinTangerine1.jpg | | It looks like there is an empty slot at 11-12 in the clock, and | also an empty slot at 7 in the clock. Each one looks partially | split in two, so I can imagine that they are the missing 2 | parts of the structure of the flower. | Grimm1 wrote: | Well that's one of the more interesting things I think I'll see | today! Neat. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-10-31 23:00 UTC)