[HN Gopher] Noninvasive imaging method can penetrate deeper into...
___________________________________________________________________
Noninvasive imaging method can penetrate deeper into living tissue
Author : rbanffy
Score : 189 points
Date : 2024-12-13 13:34 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (news.mit.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (news.mit.edu)
| yread wrote:
| Interesting, but probably not cheap:
|
| > This is achieved by having more than 0.5 megawatts peak power
|
| and
|
| > The input peak power up to 1.60 MW (350-nJ pulse energy)
|
| https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adp2438
|
| I wonder how much it affects/fries the tissue. HHG also has
| issues with attenuation.
|
| The paper abstract also says previous state of the art was 300um
| not 200um like in the press release.
| lukan wrote:
| The question is, how long is that power needed.
|
| Edit: "Ultrashort pulses" so likely not much. Because indeed,
| you cannot burn the human. So the energy consumption likely
| won't be a problem. Except that it might make the machine
| expensive to build.
| DennisP wrote:
| In fact, GP quotes "350 nJ" which is a tiny fraction of a
| watt-second.
| chris_va wrote:
| Bulk ordered, that is probably a ~$50k laser. Not nothing, but
| on the scale of medical device costs, not terrible.
| foobarbecue wrote:
| 300 to 700 micrometers? So almost nothing to still almost
| nothing.
|
| Could anyone tell a difference in the before and after images,
| other than one was grey and the other was blue? Structurally,
| they looked identical to me.
|
| Edit: internet tells me human cells are around 25um, so I guess
| you can tens of cells deep
| lucyv wrote:
| I think this is just one "slice" of a full scan. The one in
| blue has a lot more detail, and less noise.
| akoboldfrying wrote:
| Does it? I zoomed in on my phone as far as it would go, and
| could still barely tell the difference. Unfortunately the
| difference in hue makes it harder to tell _if_ there 's any
| actual difference, because it swamps everything else.
|
| Since they claim a more-than-doubling of visibility depth
| over SoTA, I'm surprised they didn't pick a visual that
| demonstrates _that_ quite radical improvement, over the
| apparently marginal improvement in resolution at depths which
| can already be managed.
| geysersam wrote:
| I also didn't distinguish any difference, don't see how the
| choice of color improves the visualization. Honestly it
| comes across as a bit deceptive.
| oivey wrote:
| The blue one is pretty significantly less noisy, and the
| animation showing the two 3D reconstructions is much clearer.
| The noise reduction probably has a lot to do with that.
| excalibur wrote:
| Yeah this isn't replacing MRI anytime soon.
| tehjoker wrote:
| It allows you to study things in-situ that are just under the
| skin without opening things up. Useful!
| danielheath wrote:
| Radiologists spend 12 years studying to be able to interpret
| imaging - as a lay person who has spent half that duration
| looking at scans most days, I still can't really form any sort
| of accurate picture of what's going on.
| Pigalowda wrote:
| Radiologists probably like the gray noisy image better
| anyways!
| dennis_jeeves2 wrote:
| I have a suspicion that radiologists themselves may not know
| what's going on. Essentially if you give a scan (with cannot
| be easily interpreted by a semi-trained layman) to more than
| one radiologists, you may get several different
| interpretation.
|
| Can some radiologist reading this confirm what I'm saying?
| scythe wrote:
| >excitation of NAD(P)H at 1100 nm.
|
| Better to understand this in context of the general techniques
| like this:
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-infrared_window_in_biologi...
| achillesheels wrote:
| What about NIR spectroscopy? It penetrates the bio window at
| >1200 microns now...not sure how this compares? I mean signal
| processing wise, I would assume NIR does the trick.
| achillesheels wrote:
| Sorry meant 1200nm*
| IshKebab wrote:
| Hmm that before/after photo looks like they spent about 5 minutes
| in Photoshop tweaking the curves. Is it really meant to
| demonstrate an improvement?
| morphle wrote:
| Mary Lou Jepsen of openwater.cc [2] has managed to image neurons
| and other large cell structures deep inside living bodies by
| phase wave interferometry and descattering signals through human
| tissues, even through skull and bone[1] using CMOS imageing
| chips, lasers, ultrasonics and holographics. A thousand times
| cheaper fMRI. She aims to get to realtime million pixels moving
| picture resolutions of around a micron. Eventually she will be
| able to read and write neurons or vibrate and someday maybe burn
| cell tissues to destruction.
|
| There are later presentations at the website where the technique
| is better described and visualized, but [1] is a good quick place
| to start and judge if you want to study their brainscanner in
| more depth. There are patents and a few scientific publications
| [3] that I'm aware of, but mostly many up to date talks with
| demonstrations by startup founder Mary Lou [4]. And recently she
| is open sourcing[5] parts of the hardware and software on github
| [6] so we can start building our own lab setups and improve the
| imageing software.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awADEuv5vWY
|
| [2] https://www.openwater.health/
|
| [3]
| https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=5Ni7umEAAAAJ...
|
| [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_cHAH4T8Co
|
| [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNFQtpNHufk
|
| [6] https://github.com/OpenwaterHealth
| germinalphrase wrote:
| I remember she did a talk at the Long Now Foundation a while
| back. My take away - which could be completely wrong - was that
| they saw the potential to read and write memories.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| She can't even answer the FDA on "explain how this will
| actually treat anything"
|
| https://github.com/OpenwaterHealth/opw_regulatory/blob/9e151.
| ..
| westurner wrote:
| From the OpenwaterHealth/opw_neuromod_sw README:
| https://github.com/OpenwaterHealth/opw_neuromod_sw :
|
| > _open-LIFU_ uses an array to precisely steer the ultrasound
| focus to the target location, _while its wearable small size
| allows transmission through the forehead into a precise spot
| location in the brain even while the patient is moving._
|
| Does it use one beam of the array to waveguide another beam?
| For imaging or for treatment?
|
| From "A simple technique to overcome self-focusing,
| filamentation, supercontinuum generation, aberrations, depth
| dependence and waveguide interface roughness using fs laser
| processing" (2017)
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-00589-8
| https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&hl=en&as_sdt=5,4...
| :
|
| > _We show that all these effects can be significantly reduced
| if not eliminated using two coherent, ultrafast laser-beams
| through a single lens - which we call the Dual-Beam technique.
| Simulations and experimental measurements at the focus are used
| to understand how the Dual-Beam technique can mitigate these
| problems. The high peak laser intensity is only formed at the
| aberration-free tightly localised focal spot, simultaneously,
| suppressing unwanted nonlinear side effects for any intensity
| or processing depth. Therefore, we believe this simple and
| innovative technique makes the fs laser capable of much more at
| even higher intensities than previously possible, allowing
| applications in multi-photon processing, bio-medical imaging,
| laser surgery of cells, tissue and in ophthalmology, along with
| laser writing of waveguides._
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| When the best you can come up with are TED talks and videos on
| a cryptocurrency youtube channel - and the only claim to fame
| she has is that she co-founded a miserable failure of a project
| (One Laptop Per Child) there are serious credibility issues.
|
| Is there any peer reviewed research?
|
| Is the collaborating with any established, published,
| respected-in-their-field researchers?
|
| After a decade of research, have they shown any actual pathway
| or mechanism of treatment?
|
| They're not helped by the FDA politely saying "you haven't
| actually said how you intend for this thing to be used" and
| "your protocols don't actually specify why they are safe" and
| "no, we're not going to give you shit, because you haven't even
| done animal studies or clinial studies" and "no, you can't just
| _say_ that your device has no risk of injury or death ":
| https://github.com/OpenwaterHealth/opw_regulatory/blob/9e151...
|
| She hasn't even done any animal studies, and went to the FDA
| seeking approval for a device...
|
| These people are a bunch of clowns. The FDA has to explain to
| them that they could do thermal testing by inserting a
| themocouple between the device and fake skin on a testing
| device.
| kkfx wrote:
| A better title and subtitle is needed though... "Noninvasive" and
| "Using high-powered lasers" might sound a little bit an
| oxymoron...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-14 23:01 UTC)