Slashdot Mirror
Imaging Breakthrough "Sees" Lung Disease
Roland Piquepaille writes "According to BusinessWeek, an Israeli startup, aptly named Deep Breeze, has developed a high-tech replacement for the 200-year-old stethoscope. This noninvasive device can draw, in seconds, an image of your lungs by listening to its vibrations. The Vibration Response Imaging (VRI) system could already be used in Israel, Europe and South Korea. Last month, the US Food and Drug Administration approved its introduction in the US. But don't expect to see one of these systems used by your local physician anytime soon. This VRI system will carry a price tag of over $40K."
Your gunna need some good insurance for that thing to ever save your life.
America is cold blooded.
But is $40K a lot as far as medical devices cost? How much is the x-ray machine at the doctor's office, or the ultrasound equipment at the heart specialist?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
You're worth every penny.
At $40,000 it may not be around every doctor's neck, but geez just the exam table I sit on and the scale they make me stand on totals a staggering amount. I can't imagine something in the tens of thousands being cost prohibative to the medical field.
The real question is how often will this be used? Not every doctor is going to need this as, it seems, this is going to start out as a specialist item. Your local hospital may only have need for one of these things in the long run.
In any case this is a good step forward and I'm glad to hear about it...
Now, where did I put that pack of Camels???
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Why, when there is an article about something visual, especially a revolutionary new visualization system, do they never show pictures.
I hate that.
If you are reporting on a neat visual thingy,... SHOW ME THE THINGY. Even a picture of the machine would be a plus, even if it looks exactly like an MRI or some other machine. I don't care if the picture may mean nothing to me. Put a little caption trying to explain it. It doesn't matter, show me SOMETHING.
Does anyone have a picture?
This should be criminal.
(the annoyed MBCook)
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
What I find interesting is that checking lung inhalation capacity is only one small task for a stethoscope. How is imaging the lungs going to help checking for heart valve / murmur problems?
Meaning, from a marketing standpoint, saying that their product "replaces" the stethoscope is sexy to say, but actually pulling it off is a completely different thing all together...
$40k for medical equiptment isn't bad. Compare it to the cost of a MRI machine, or even a 'low cost' (which is $100k-$200k) x-ray machine. Radiosurgery machines (for cancer) run $3-5 million. Having an accurate diagnosis for $40k is almost cheap by those standards.
But is $40K a lot as far as medical devices cost? How much is the x-ray machine at the doctor's office, or the ultrasound equipment at the heart specialist?
Those machines go from $50,000 (xray) to $3,000,000 (CT, Linac, MRI). QC, operators and electricity are also expensive.
That makes this device sound cheap, but it could be way overpriced if it's nothing more than a microphone hooked to a stethoscope run through some FFTs. In that case, you are paying for a database of frequency signatures. Even if it's doing some kind of sonic imaging, the techniques are well known and you are paying for a specific implementation that will soon be duplicated. Other things you might be paying for are insurance and other parasitic paperwork. Hats off to the Doctor, but I'd like more details on how the thing works.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
This is nice in theory, however I don't see it really catching on.
For one thing, a stethescope is very cheap. Forty-thousand isn't a lot for a hospital, but if it's not necessary, they won't buy it. That money is better spent on salaries, or saving up for that high-tech imagine unit. Furthermore, even with an output from this, it's highly likely they'll order a CT or MRI anyway for a higher resolution picture.
TFA says that the price of the imaging modality will drop in the next few years with economies of scale and so forth. This is good, very good. It means that it'll make its way into the GP's practice soon and not just be in the hands of respiratory physicians and hospitals. But, honestly, look at things like this: TFA mentions that as far as replacing the stethoscope goes, it removes any sort of interpersonal bias between doctors in diagnosis. While this is just wonderful in respect to some esoteric diagnoses ie. whether you can *hear* a tiny small-cell carcinoma, but for the rest of us, I feel that a stethoscope, a quiet room and a competent doctor will suffice. The sounds of pneumonia, emphysema, pulmonary oedema, tuberculosis, bronchiole asthma etc. are all quite distinctive and as a medical student, I find it somewhat surprising that there can be any significant argument or doubt regarding the diagnosis of such patients. Heck, even if there was doubt, there are other elements of the presenting complaint (risk factors, family history, blood tests and plain old signs & symptoms) that can help doctors reach a definitive diagnosis. What I'm trying to say is, the old stuff works, its tried and true, and it's not easy to honestly miss pulmonary lesions. So, apart from being a novel visual toy (I know it's an instrument but how much fun is this?!) would it HONESTLY replace a $70 stethoscope and a head full of juicy knowledge brains? Me thinks nah :-p