[HN Gopher] A low-cost and shielding-free ultra-low-field brain ... ___________________________________________________________________ A low-cost and shielding-free ultra-low-field brain MRI scanner Author : innolitics Score : 318 points Date : 2022-02-04 15:35 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.nature.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com) | omarhaneef wrote: | Don't they already have something like this in the field? | https://hyperfine.io | wforfang wrote: | This exact product is mentioned in the article as evidence for | clinical/market demand. It also shows precedence for FDA | approval of a pretty similar instrument for clinical | diagnostics. Although, its interesting to note that the | hyperfine MRI (at least ostensibly) seems to do the same thing | in a smaller/more portable form factor. | omarhaneef wrote: | I missed it, but I guess my underlying question remains: what | is the innovation over previous attempts that gets the paper | into nature? | SubiculumCode wrote: | This is cool. Don't get me wrong. You could build this in your | garage maybe. But those scans are useless for what I do in my | research. The resolution and contrast it provides are just too | low. Edit: for neuroscience research..I hadn't considered any | clinical utility. | m00dy wrote: | well, I can call this is a research :) | saulrh wrote: | Being able to use this around metal is _also_ huge. It means you | can use it on patients with metal implants or bullets in them, to | guide surgery in real-time, in the surgical suite, at the same | time as other medical instruments, at the patient 's bedside | instead of in a dedicated room that you have to transport the | patient to, etc. | _qua wrote: | People with metal implants and bullets can often still have | MRIs with some additional screening/safety measures. There may | be advantages to operating under live MRI guidance but I'm not | aware of any research on that. Even with low fields, you still | would get artifact from having metal near your target of | imaging. | lostlogin wrote: | The images are better that I expected. The 'FLAIR like' image is | not particularly FLAIR like. FLAIR are nicer to look at when fat | saturated (not everyone agrees with that), but that's probably | not feasible at that field strength and adding scan time would be | a problem on these long sequences. Voxel sizes of 2x2x10 are | pretty terrible resolution, but if the alternative is nothing, I | guess that's ok. The static field is so low, I'm impressed it | works at all. | TheJoeMan wrote: | You know, sometimes all you need is "do I have a baseball sized | tumor or not". | ska wrote: | In that case, likely you found it before anyone asked for an | MRI. | [deleted] | innolitics wrote: | That's absolutely true. We work with a lot of technical | founders who are turning their research into a diagnostic | medical devices. One of the first questions we always ask is: | how will the information produced by your device help | clinical decision making? More data is _nice_ but if it | doesn't alter the course of treatment, it's pointless. | Sometimes it's okay if the doctor doesn't know if the problem | is A or B if the treatment for A and B is the same. | queuebert wrote: | Or a massive brain hemorrhage. | fluidcruft wrote: | That's generally been the challenge with these super low- | field scanners--they can't get T2*/susceptibility that's | anywhere close to useful (yet?). | mwint wrote: | Reading the terminology being thrown around here, where | could I go to get a basic understanding of what you'll | are talking about? | | It sounds like different modes of taking (or | interpreting/visualizing?) an MRI. | rasmus1610 wrote: | These are different MRI sequences that are weighted | differently to produce a specific contrast that show | different characteristics of the tissue that is imaged. | | I really liked ,MRI made easy' as an introduction to MRI | physics. Just google it, it's a free Book | lostlogin wrote: | How funny, you just beat my comment. A link to it. | | https://rads.web.unc.edu/wp- | content/uploads/sites/12234/2018... | fluidcruft wrote: | (vastly simplified) MRI basically functions on two | fundamental mechanisms--"spin echo" and "gradient echo". | Spin echo signal is described by T1 and T2. Gradient echo | signal is described by T1 and T2*. The difference between | T2 and T2* relate to local magnetic properties of the | tissue which is called "susceptibility". Blood contains | iron so its presence alters T2* and this is exploited | clinically. A good example of T2* imaging used clinically | is susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI). | | T2* effects increase with higher MRI main field strength. | From what I can tell so far these ultra low-field | scanners have to rely on spin echoes. | lostlogin wrote: | I've spent a long time around scanners and re-read this | book before helping students. It's remarkable easy to | lose track of the fundamentals, though maybe that's just | me. | | The whole book is available for free as a download. MRI | Made Easy (... Well almost). https://rads.web.unc.edu/wp- | content/uploads/sites/12234/2018... | AnimalMuppet wrote: | But if the answer is "yes", the next question is "do I also | have pinhead-sized metastases, and if so, where?" | car wrote: | Those metastases get taken care of by chemo- or | immunotherapy. | littlestymaar wrote: | Isn't this question answered by a PET scan and not MRI ? | doctoring wrote: | Usually not! | | PET scans are limited in resolution when you get down to | the sub-5 mm or so range due to scanner technology and | fundamental limits of the physics of positron/electron | annihilation & photon emission. | | A typical MRI (i.e. alas, not what this article is | describing) can usually resolve something at that size | and identify characteristics like diffusion restriction | or contrast enhancement which can confirm metastasis. | | Also, in the brain, PET scans (at least the most common, | FDG, which is based on glucose) are extremely limited in | utility because of the baseline high glucose metabolism | of the brain, which makes it hard to distinguish from the | metabolic activity of a tumor. | fluidcruft wrote: | The flip-side of that is that PET is vastly multiple | orders of magnitude far more sensitive than MRI. So while | PET may not be able to localize as well as MRI, it can | detect smaller things if the targeting of the | radioisotope is good. | lostlogin wrote: | Maybe the state of play has changed, as we scan for this | indication in MR, not PET. | | Have you a link to something as my understanding is that | small lesions are better found with MR? | | Or is this a rule that applies to high end research work | and hasn't hit clinical practice yet? Maybe a limitation | of the isotopes used clinically? | lostlogin wrote: | I am unsure of the exact state of play but believe that | small mets (eg a few mm in size) are better seen with | MRI. MR is probably easier to get than PET too. | | There are usually a few radiologists lurking here and | they would have better knowledge than me (I'm an MR | tech). | | https://appliedradiology.com/articles/diagnosing-brain- | metas... | mabbo wrote: | This is precisely what saved my father's life last year. | | 16 years ago he had some kind of brain cyst. Totally benign. | But as a follow up, the doctor ordered yearly MRIs, much to | his annoyance. | | Last year those yearly routine MRIs spotted a brain tumor- | before it had time to get dangerous or cause any damage to | him. It was growing quickly though and was right near his | eye. Quick surgery got it out. | | I want to live in a world where everyone has access to that. | lostlogin wrote: | A tumour can be a lot smaller than 1cm and cause issues. A | pituitary microadenoma is an example, and this machine | would struggle to show it. | | That said, I'd like a go. I suspect that with more samples | (more time) you could get the resolution up. | an1sotropy wrote: | I think it is amazing that they're getting decent ADC maps - | diffusion imaging is fundamentally about measuring how much the | image gets dimmer (due to diffusion sensitizing gradients), so | it's always running up against SNR limits. This is so darn | cool. | lostlogin wrote: | It really is. | | For some reason it reminded me of the crazy project where | some team used the earths field as the static field and | _just_ added gradients and the RF stuff. I can't find the | article I remember but this project looks similar and scans a | capsicum rather than an apple. | | https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6956005_A_practical. | .. | qrian wrote: | Can this also do fMRI? I'm already trying to build DIY fnirs | machine for cogsci research but if this does fMRI too I might | build this one too. | hwillis wrote: | > We have experimentally estimated in our preliminary study | that the apparent T1/T2 values for gray matter and white matter | were approximately 330/110 ms and 260/100 ms at 0.055 T (vs. | 1300/110 ms and 830/80 ms at 3 T51) while CSF maintains long T1 | (>1500 ms) and T2 (>1000 ms). | | That's not particularly different from normal MRIs, and the | achieved resolution is not that much worse than normal MRIs. | The scans have lower contrast (and repeated/longer scans is one | way to improve that) and using for functional imaging will make | that worse, but honestly it doesn't seem to have suffered very | much at all. | qrian wrote: | > First, these scanners rely on complex superconducting | electromagnet/cryogenics designs and ever increasingly powerful | electronics (including gradient and radiofrequency power | systems) for fast imaging and/or advanced imaging features like | brain functional MRI and diffusion tractography, yet routine | clinical uses only necessitate a small portion of these imaging | protocols. | | I guess this implies not? | lostlogin wrote: | That's talking about a conventional scanner, the article is | about a permanent magnet and a more straight forward design. | qrian wrote: | I guess then I will have to wait for someone much more | knowledgable in mechanical engineering than me to answer. | Thanks for the input. | carbocation wrote: | This sort of technology offers a lot of value for understanding | human health in the future. | | Right now, we (physicians) discourage people from getting tested | outside of guidelines because we don't know what to do with | incidental findings. But you could imagine that as a society, we | would like to detect and understand these things, rather than | just remain ignorant to them. | | Inexpensive technology like this could be perfect for performing | large-scale studies with repeated sampling of volunteers over | time, to gain information that can help the next generation. | robwwilliams wrote: | And perfect for very high false discovery rates and unnecessary | downstream diagnostic burden and iatrogenic errors. Rather see | a focus on new magnet technologies to reduce cost without loss | if already marginal clinical MRI resolution. | sfink wrote: | > And perfect for very high false discovery rates and | unnecessary downstream diagnostic burden and iatrogenic | errors. | | ...which is exactly why the comment you're replying to says | that physicians discourage them. That's missing the point; | noisier devices are indeed not going to be great at improving | the existing applications. But there's a whole world of other | possibilities out there as long you don't _try_ to substitute | questionable data for good. Like monitoring over time, or | between-patients studies where you get additional | significance from large numbers, or even just fishing | expeditions where you see what the cheaper and more | deployable stuff is capable of. Not everything needs the best | and only the best. | | > Rather see a focus on new magnet technologies to reduce | cost without loss if already marginal clinical MRI | resolution. | | Why not both? The work required is going to be pretty | different. | | And chaining them together is a time-honored technique: use | the quick cheap thing to detect reasons to dig in with the | fancy stuff. Your base rate may be low, but if the quick | check is negative then the adjusted probability might drop it | below some other cause that you'd be better off looking into. | | Data is good, just don't fuck it up. | ratg13 wrote: | When we say "low-cost", just how low cost are we talking here? | | I skimmed through the article, but still didn't comprehend how | much something like this might actually cost. | ska wrote: | The up front cost is only one part of the story. | | Siting a conventional MRI is pretty expensive (often requires a | new build 6 figures for sure) and operation costs can run up to | even 5 fig/month for powerful ones. | | They could probably get one of these out the door for approx | 100k. Clinical scanners are typically 10x+ that. | | Siting cost would be next to nothing, and operating costs low | too. | lostlogin wrote: | This is a good comment and still underplays the cost of MRI. | Getting a reasonable 3T setup going will be a lot more than | US$1 million. Running costs are very high, with a scanner | lifetime service contract being somewhere between 50% and | 100% the original cost of the MRI scanner. | | Additionally, the scanner cost is only part the price. There | is the Faraday cage, chilling, room setup, building | strengthening, scanner install and shipping cost, peripheral | equipment (compatible monitoring, injectors, compatible beds | and chairs etc). It probably comes in at a doubling of the | cost of the actual scanner. | | While reducing the cost of the install and running will help | a lot, the staffing is the larger cost in radiology, as techs | and radiologists are expensive. | | Costs will vary hugely depending on where you are in the | world, but it isn't cheap anywhere. | ska wrote: | I was intentionally handwaving but above is about right in | orders of magnitude, i just rolled things up. | | Staffing is an interesting one (which I ignored, but good | point you can't really) - lots of potential deployments of | a small machine like this probably don't look anything like | a US standard imaging suite, and aren't going to be staffed | the same way. If you run all the numbers in detail you get | big variations here, depending on set up. | gnatman wrote: | Towards the bottom: "Such scanner can be made low cost to | manufacture, maintain and operate. For quantity production, we | estimate hardware material costs under USD20K." | SubiculumCode wrote: | That's cheap...just not cheap enough for me to want to build | it in my garage as a party gag. | datavirtue wrote: | I have seen people of modest means build cars that cost | five times that in their garage. ...and that was twenty | years ago. | ISL wrote: | _Edit: This post was intended as a reply | tohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30209618 , presently | below_ | | > _The lead author, Dr. Craig Bennett, wanted to get something | fresh, so he headed in to the grocery story first thing in the | morning. At the fish counter, he spoke the words that will echo | down the centuries as a testimony to the dedication and drive of | neuroscientists throughout the ages: | | >"I need a full length Atlantic Salmon. For science."_ | | That reminds me of the day that I needed a strong lightweight | cable for a silica-fiber melting/drawing apparatus. After some | puzzling, I realized that bicycle shift/brake cabling would | probably be perfect for the task. | | I'll never forget the puzzled look at the bike shop -- "What kind | of bike are you putting it on?" "I'm not, I just need some brake | cable for a science experiment...." As I recall, I think we | finally settled on some precut cabling for a GT Zaskar of some | kind. | | Similar things came up the day that I needed a valve that | switched faster than our dedicated micro-switching valves. A | similar light-bulb went on, and I went down to the nearby auto | shop for a fuel-injector. | | "What kind of car do you need it for?" | | "I don't, but there are a couple of different valve-switching | protocols, some that latch open and others that accept straight | TTL at reasonable currents. I need one of those." | | That experiment was brought to you by an injector for, I believe, | a Dodge Caravan, and later, when I needed another, an injector | for a Ford Mustang. Fuel-injectors are _really_ good valves. | mr337 wrote: | Some of the automotive stuff is really great to get started. | Was working on an agriculture robot and needed a good way to | detect a level of something. In short a IP65+ hall effect | sensor that can get wet and dirt no problem. | | The solution was a $12 ride sensor from a Cadillac SUV of some | type. Worked perfect! | lostlogin wrote: | I had a friend automating a production line and he needed to | detect the level of peanut butter in a vat. He settled on an | ultrasonic device as basically anything else ended up caked | in peanut butter. It was an impressive setup, all done in | Arduino. | TheMagicHorsey wrote: | I wonder if its practical to DIY your own production line | automation today with Arduino. Like if I had a simple | product, could I buy stuff off the shelf and integrate it | myself in my garage and end up with a little mini-factory? | Exciting to think about. | lostlogin wrote: | The person I was describing runs a food production line | and has modified various bits of equipment for speed, | efficiency, safety and ease of use. They have got great | results. They have no formal training, have no software | background and basically go to https://www.dfrobot.com | and get what they need, then hack. | simcop2387 wrote: | Probably not impossible, but I think the bigger thing | will be the time to research the mechanical design of | whatever you're doing. That and finding reasonably priced | sensors that will be reliable. | TaylorAlexander wrote: | I obsess over this concept. I am a robotics engineer and | my dream is local manufacturing with small DIY machines. | But it's a lot of work! When I have a little more time I | want to teach community robotics classes and build | machines that makes shoes and hot food and other | important goods, designed and built as a community. I | designed a cheap large format laser cutter [1][2] and now | I am designing shoes that can be made with a 3D printer, | the laser cutter, a sewing machine, and some basic tools. | [3] | | [1] https://twitter.com/TLAlexander/status/14803321812852 | 12160 | | [2] | https://github.com/tlalexander/large_format_laser_cutter | | [3] https://twitter.com/TLAlexander/status/14895196927125 | 38113 | matheusmoreira wrote: | That is so cool. I wish you success. | [deleted] | toiletfuneral wrote: | Made a a pretty sick vacuum tube in high school with clear | acrylic and put a shrader valve on it so it could be easily | decompressed with an auto shop ac recharge machine. I won the | shit out that science fair showing a feather drop like a rock | theptip wrote: | At $20k estimated cost, you are getting into territory where the | TAM of non-medical uses may be higher. | | Sports physio / trainers would kill to be able to do regular MRI | on their athletes. Being able to do pre/post workout imaging, and | the kind of training programs this level of visibility would | unlock, are quite exciting. | | Assuming you can generalize from brain to whole-body, I think you | could sell one of these to every major sports team in the | country, and making it a non-medical device (ie skipping the FDA) | would let you iterate much faster. A couple more halvings in | price and this is accessible to every sports physio office and | gym in the country. | | Very cool! | mrfusion wrote: | Could this be an alternative to Elon's neural link? Is it | wearable? | endymi0n wrote: | Apart from the potentially massive significance to low-income | countries and health costs, does someone has a good grasp on the | applicability of the algorithmical advances towards classic MRI? | | My current gut feeling is like: If 0.055 Tesla can create this | kind of image quality, what could we possibly expect at 1.5 or | more? | lostlogin wrote: | You can expect a lot and you get it. It's truely impressive | what a bog standard 1.5 or 3T magnet can do and how fast it can | do it. A standard brain protocol will often include whole brain | imaging at 0.8mm x 0.8mm x 0.8mm voxel size or thereabouts. It | takes about 4-5 minutes. A leg angio done from start to finish | in 20 minutes. This is without more advanced processing, and | some clever processing is coming into clinical use now. Deep | Resolve (Siemens) and Compressed Sense/Sensing | (Philips/Siemens) are what I'm thinking of. Faster scans, or | more resolution in the same time. It's a good time to be using | MRI. | | Edit: Compressed sense/sensing is not some AI/Machine learning | thing. It's pretty neat though, a PR video here. | https://www.siemens-healthineers.com/magnetic-resonance-imag... | rexreed wrote: | So you're saying we have sufficient trust in the same sort of NN | technology that confuses 8's and 0's in OCR text will be used to | impute image data which might or might not exist? Sure, NN's are | great at "filling in the gaps" and colorizing pictures based on | what might be assumed, but when accuracy matters, does this | approach truly work? | | EDIT: I just want to point out that the original subject title of | the post on HN was "A low-cost and shielding-free ultra-low-field | brain MRI scanner Using AI" ... and the Using AI part of the post | title was subsequently removed. | tshaddox wrote: | Do you have any data on the reliability of OCR systems used in | production? I don't have any such data, but given that the USPS | was using OCR to sort mail over 50 years ago I would be | surprised if these systems aren't incredibly accurate. | rexreed wrote: | From: https://research.aimultiple.com/ocr-technology/ | | "There are still no OCR tools that work at human level in | most applications" | | and also from my personal experience working with this | technology every day. There are many more mistakes in OCR | even with printed material than might be expected. | | There is a major problem with Xerox Scanners and the 8's and | 0's issue I reference. | isoprophlex wrote: | See other comments. The nn is used to clear up electromagnetic | inference as there's no shielding cage. It's not anything lik a | superresolution approach on the processed voxel data. | rexreed wrote: | Ok good clarification as the title of the post seems to imply | much more than just fixing interference. As always, the | article subject is the hook that gets you in and then you | realize it's not as might have been expected. | ck2 wrote: | Now build a truck with MRI in the back and drive to where it's | most needed. | | They already do this with DEXA body scans. | | Examples: https://bodyandbone.com/mobile-dexa-services | https://body-comp.com/testing/mobile-dexa/ | https://www.bodyspec.com/ | [deleted] | ubercore wrote: | There have been CT scanners put in helicopters as well: | https://www.auntminnieeurope.com/index.aspx?sec=ser&sub=def&... | a-dub wrote: | woah. woah. woah. hold on a second here... are we comfortable | enough with understanding all of the behavior of deep learning | models to where we can confidently put them in the pipeline for | diagnostic clinical imaging? | | i'm okay with using them for image analysis, but denoising and | other image production tasks seems dangerous. how do you know | what you're looking at is real as opposed to something that just | looks convincing? (like deep neural nets are famous for | producing) | iancmceachern wrote: | Yes. This is past tense, other companies are already doing | this, in the clinic. | lostlogin wrote: | A link: https://www.siemens-healthineers.com/magnetic- | resonance-imag... | fluidcruft wrote: | Deep learning reconstructions are already marketed/sold in | high-end commercial scanners. | axg11 wrote: | Whether you're comfortable with it or not - it's already | happened and in production. Look up Subtle Medical and GE AIR | Recon. | lostlogin wrote: | Literally just purchased this - Installed tomorrow: | https://www.siemens-healthineers.com/magnetic-resonance- | imag... | MauranKilom wrote: | Agreed, but I believe "using AI for inference from sparse | observations" is unfortunately a thing already. | lostlogin wrote: | It's not unfortunate, it improves acquisition times and image | quality - I use it daily. | VikingCoder wrote: | That's not "unfortunate." | | Sparse observations save lives. A quicker MR. Less X-Ray | exposure. | | It's totally valid to worry about validation, but to the | degree you can validate image processing algorithms of any | kind - AI or otherwise - they absolutely save lives. | aidenn0 wrote: | NMRI use microwaves, not x-rays. | VikingCoder wrote: | I was talking about MR and CT. Applies to PET, too. | | Image processing saves lives. | lostlogin wrote: | Yes, and when a quick MRI is available, it can remove the | need for a CT. Fast brain protocols are now less than 5 | minutes. This makes things practical that weren't before. | l33tman wrote: | This project doesn't use AI to improve the image, they use it | to estimate the EMI noise from the surroundings. So they're not | "filling in the gaps" in the actual resulting 3D voxel volume | with fantasy voxels (which I hope will never ever fly in a | clinical setting). | | "To tackle the EMI signals from the external environments and | internal low-cost electronics during scanning, we developed a | deep learning driven EMI cancellation scheme" | | So it's kind of using deep learning to improve the SnR in the | RF reception. Of course this could theoretically also lead to | "fantasy voxels" but due to the nature of MRI decoding, I'm | willing to guess that bad predictions of the EMI interference | will not show up as unnoticeable alterations of realistic | tissue imaging but rather as artefacts all over the volume, | like you normally see in clinical MRIs that weren't taken 100% | optimally. | ortusdux wrote: | I'm glad that this is the approach that they are taking. | There have been plenty of issues with fMRI false positives | due to misconfigured software. | | The most famous would probably be the IG Nobel winning study | that detected brain activity in a store-bought salmon: | | https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious- | brain/ignobe... | | https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/fmri-gets-slap-in- | the-... | | Later studies called into question the results of between 10% | and 40% of historic fMRI studies: | | https://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/nichols/entry/bibliometrics_of_c. | .. | | https://www.pnas.org/content/113/28/7900 | WalterSear wrote: | I prefer to think of that study as evidence for life after | death. | jacquesm wrote: | > The most famous would probably be the IG Nobel winning | study that detected brain activity in a store-bought | salmon: | | A store-bought _dead_ salmon. | | I am assuming that most salmons bought in stores are dead | but that particular detail is rather relevant here. | | Also that had me laughing, what a great move. | robwwilliams wrote: | Not sure the dead salmon is relevant. That paper is | focused on false discovery in FUNCTIONAL MRI. Different | can of fish. Most clinical work is structural MRI. | jacquesm wrote: | The chances of finding brain activity in a dead salmon | are a bit lower than finding it in one that is alive. | prefrontal wrote: | Thanks for the kind words. I am the first author of the | "Neural correlates of interspecies perspective taking in | the post-mortem Atlantic Salmon: An argument for multiple | comparisons correction" paper. Happy to take any questions | here. A link to the original poster: | http://prefrontal.org/files/posters/Bennett-Salmon-2009.pdf | nichos44 wrote: | Those false positives are because fmri runs countless | statistical tests and the earlier "misconfigured software" | wasn't running stringent enough multiple comparisons | corrections. Basically the same issue in the classic "jelly | bean causes acne" xkcd (https://xkcd.com/882/). The exact | number depends on voxel size, temporal resolution, and | experimental condition but is somewhere close to tens of | thousands of tests. | | The "images" that are presented in fMRI studies and that | contain false positives are representing results of | statistical tests (t-values, and f-values after correction) | not the contents of voxels. So the false positive rate of | an fMRI has very little to do with the accuracy of a | voxel's content in a structural MRI. | a-dub wrote: | the primary innovation is using deep learning to denoise the | signal and the cost savings derived from being able to use a | noisier signal. | | whether you call it "SnR improvement" or "additive noise | cancellation", it is undeniably adulteration of the signal. | | looking at the supplementary information, it looks like this | paper was reviewed by mr-physicists. i think it also should | have been reviewed by ml experts as well. | petra wrote: | It's better than nothing. Let's start with those situations, | and slowly build a database proving or disproving this | technology. | jcims wrote: | >However, MRI accessibility is low and extremely | inhomogeneous around the world. According to the 2020 | Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) | statistics, there are approximately 65,000 installations of | MRI scanners worldwide (~7 per million inhabitants) | | Given that my little podunk hospital in the midwest seems to | have roughly 5x the worldwide average number of MRI machines, | totally agree. | lostlogin wrote: | MRI is also a massive revenue generator. That's a key | reason they buy them. | mattkrause wrote: | Amen! | | I have seen an alarming number of talks where someone proposes | to algorithmically add Gado contrast or turn a T1 into a T2 | image. In a few very specific contexts, this makes sense (e.g., | aligning a T1 taken in one session with a T2 taken in another). | Otherwise though, it seems dangerous to mistake a "real" image | with the expected image given another one. | lostlogin wrote: | If reducing gadolinium dose is the aim, a more prompt | following of the literature, radiologist request (rather than | surgeon demand) and weight based dosing would drastically | reduce dosage. A moaning radiographer, what a surprise! | phkahler wrote: | I'm kind of thinking the opposite. Image analysis is where you | don't want AI. Noise removal is further upstream (I'm assuming) | and if it fails wouldn't it cause significant artifacts (blur | for example) in the images? | | It would be helpful to see results with and without this | correction, or even with varying degrees of it. | VikingCoder wrote: | That's a valid risk. | | You're asking a cost-benefit question. | | The cost of an invalid diagnosis is indeed high. | | The cost of no diagnosis at all is also high. | | This device will not replace the MR at your local hospital. It | will be the first MR device in hospitals that have never had | one before. | lostlogin wrote: | Veterinary MRI may be another application. | VikingCoder wrote: | Good point. Cargo inspection? Luggage inspection? I dunno. | lostlogin wrote: | There are a lot of applications that are surprising. I've | scanned for salmon farmers (is that the term?) who want | to check they are breeding good fish and are looking at | spine alignment. | | I've scanned logs for forestry managers who want to look | at something in their trees. | | I've scanned old hearts that have been sitting in | formalin for decades. | | All are probably better at higher field strength but | maybe some of that can be compensated for by scanning for | longer? A log isn't going to move, and a dead fish scan | is likely only limited by the time it takes for it to | rot. | | I'd be scared of scanning unknown things, it might be a | low field MRI, but it's still a big magnet. | scratcheee wrote: | Exactly my thoughts too. I'm fine with a simple noise-removal | pass, but if the AI is context-aware, what's to stop it saying | "hmm, this brain would look more like a normal brain if I | remove these tumors". Obviously, they'll test for that, but | that only handles common cases they concider, it's always going | to be a risk for more unusual sceanrios, and the danger with | altering the data is that anyone looking at the results wont | have a way to tell how dubious that data is. | | Reminds me of | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox#Character_substitution_b... | which was _so much_ worse than the equivilent OCR bug because | it occured at the image level, where everyone expects errors to | to produce noise, not contextly sensible and sharp _but wrong_ | characters. | | EDIT: based on other comments below, this is thankfully not the | case, the AI just understands noise, it doesn't try to "fill in | the blanks" based on how brains are supposed to look. | xattt wrote: | Therein lies the dilemma of this technology: would a scanner | that might sometimes substitute information be better than no | scanner at all? | robwwilliams wrote: | The ML denoising is within-sample across voxels---or so I | presume from similar work in small animal MRI. And you can | always have the "with" and "without". I do not see any | problem if a radiologist is in the review process. | jart wrote: | How do you know? They're both based on neural networks. JBIG2 | was also responsible for the Pegasus FORCEDENTRY thing. | robertlagrant wrote: | > a simple noise-removal pass | | Even that is inventing data, no? | scratcheee wrote: | Yes, but context is key. | | Denoising can on average improve the result, but sometimes | it will be wrong. | | Spotting when it goes wrong is potentially a difficult | task, but generally the difficulty scales pretty clearly | with the difficulty of understanding the original image | anyway. If you can't spot when a denoising filter has | screwed up, chances are you wouldn't have spotted anything | interesting in the original image anyway. | | But once an AI is context-aware things get way more | complicated - it will try very hard to produce an image | that doesn't _look_ wrong. Even if it goes wrong, it can go | wrong and still succeed in managing to make an image that | looks correct, it just no longer matches the real brain | that was scanned. Perhaps it decided a tumor was just a | smudge on the lense, and invented some brain to go behind | it. An operator expecting to see brain and seeing brain | wont think anything of it. When the patient dies, they may | look back and say "wow, that tumor didn't exist at all just | 3 days before! that should be impossible!". | | tldr: Having an ai that might make mistakes is one thing, | having an ai that can just invent exactly the data everyone | is expecting to see is dangerous. | tshaddox wrote: | Hopefully the system would be trained to accurately convey | relevant medical information rather than to generate an image | of a brain that looks normal. | alehackp19 wrote: | walterbell wrote: | Code/data for replication: https://github.com/bispmri/Ultra-low- | field-MRI-Scanner | phkahler wrote: | Some of the code is Matlab. I wonder if GNU octave is | sufficient to run it. That would be a big savings for studying | this. | keewee7 wrote: | I am surprised that there isn't open source alternatives to | Simulink, Stateflow etc. | | One reason Matlab is popular in academia and industry is | because someone who don't know C/C++ (mechanical engineers | etc.) can use something like Simulink to program real-time | systems on microcontrollers and FPGAs. | neuronexmachina wrote: | The only Matlab file seems to just be be ~30 lines of code | for reading HDF5 files and plotting some results, nothing too | complicated or critical: https://github.com/bispmri/Ultra- | low-field-MRI-Scanner/blob/... | | It looks like the bulk of the code for training the EMI | elimination model is is pretty straightforward PyTorch. | devwastaken wrote: | How does this fare against patents? Isn't pretty much everything | to do with the actual implementation of an MRI patented and | copyrighted in some way to prevent anyone else from entering the | game? | ska wrote: | The basic patents all expired ages ago. There are details | patented by everyone, but there is a lot of FTO. | | The real barrier to entry is cost. Building out a permanent | magnet system like this is likely an order or two cheaper | though. | aidenn0 wrote: | The very first NMRI images were published in the early 70s, so | at least some of what is required must be public domain now. | The original diffusion and perfusion patents are both from the | 80s, so should also be expired I think? | | That being said it's very hard to make any even slightly novel | machine (MRI or otherwise) that isn't so close to an existing | patent that a judge would dismiss a suit out of hand. | egocodedinsol wrote: | "There are approximately seven scanners per million inhabitants | and over 90% are concentrated in high-income countries. We | describe an ultra-low-field brain MRI scanner that operates using | a standard AC power outlet and is low cost to build." | | This is fantastic. What a sentence to get to write. | cute_boi wrote: | Yea, the way they turned the bleak situation into something | sanguine is fascinating. I still remember how expensive is MRI. | I used to earn like $150 usd and the cost was around $200 usd. | I hope such inequality shall perish in the future, so people | can at least get proper treatment. | asiachick wrote: | I'm curious what makes them expensive. In Japan they are | basically free (covered by national insurance for which the | price is low). I believe at one point Japan had the most MRI | machines per capita. I think the government just decided they | were worth while and got a bunch where as in the USA they | were seen as a money source and they generally charge $1k to | $10k ?!?!?! | | I'd love for the expensive ones to be disrupted. The dream is | we get some attachment for our smart phones and turn them | into Tricorders. | morcheeba wrote: | I worked for a medical company that did RF tumor ablation. | In Japan we sold a machine that cooked small tumors as an | out-patient procedure, because their easy MRIs would spot | them early. In the US, we sell more complicated machines | that work on bigger tumors because we find them later here | - when they get too big, you have to be very careful not to | damage surrounding tissue. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-02-04 23:00 UTC)