Invent the Medical Tricorder, Win $10,000,000

GeneralSecretary writes "If you've ever watched Star Trek and said, 'Hey, I could build that,' now's your chance. Qualcomm and the X PRIZE Foundation have teamed together to offer ten million US dollars to whomever can invent 'a mobile solution that can diagnose patients better than or equal to a panel of board certified physicians.' They call it the Tricorder X PRIZE. Hopefully the Tricorder will join the cell phone, MRI, and tablet computer in the list of Star Trek devices that are now part of our lives."

Comments

better than a group of doctors?!?!

[modmans2ndcoming]

Can't we start out with just one doctor?

Re:better than a group of doctors?!?!

[MoldySpore]

There is already a device that can diagnose you as well as 1 doctor. It's called a Magic 8-Ball.

Re:better than a group of doctors?!?!

[skylerweaver]

Actually, I find it interesting you used the Magic-8-Ball. While it is just a toy, the 20Q toy (which is somewhat similar in my mind) is very interesting because it tries to guess what you are thinking of by asking you yes/no/sometimes/don't-know questions. The neural net was then built by people playing the game and providing 'better questions' for when the AI got the answer wrong.

Could you not do the same for medical diagnosis?

[Do you have a headache?]
"No."
[Does your stomach hurt?]
"Yes."
[You have an ulcer?]
"No."
[What's wrong, and what would have been a better question?]
"Food poisoning, and 'Did you eat uncooked meat recently?'"
[Noted. Now I am smarter.]

It seems that you could make a diagnosis engine that as you rule things out it could come to as good a conclusion as a typical doctor.

According to this thing...

[davidbrit2]

"...you talk like a fag, and your shit's all retarded!"

Re:According to this thing...

[CharlyFoxtrot]

"Okay. This one goes in your mouth. This one's for your ear. And... This one goes in your butt."
[scrambles plugs]
"No wait, THIS one goes in your mouth, ..."

Difficult

[lymond01]

You'd need...

Broken bones: something that bounces off bone and can detect the time to travel which will determine fractures and breaks. If you're using a flat scanning device, everything needs to bounce off something inside the body, rather than pass through and imprint itself on x-ray paper, etc.

Diseases: Lasers can tell blood type now (I think)...might be you could fine tune it to detect anything from genes to bacteria.

Muscle and ligament tears: same deal as bone I suppose -- would need to reflect off of a certain type of material.

Internal bleeding: scan for pools of blood versus the normal trails of blood (veins, arteries, capillaries)

My only question is why we need 4 different devices (MRI, pad, phone, tricorder)...I'd fully expect this to have solar-rechargeable batteries and a form factor that can fit in my back pocket (which would require a wide-angle "lens" for the probes so it doesn't take you 20 minutes to scan someone). And I darn well better hear the "wee-ooo, wee-ooo" sound without having to put on headphones!

Re:Difficult

[ColdWetDog]

No, the trick is understanding that different imaging modalities give different, and incomplete, pictures. The current level of technology in imaging currently precludes any sort of device like this. Decent MRI scanners still fill an entire room, ultrasound scanners with good resolution still take a trolley that has to be wheeled, not carried. X-rays don't bounce, they penetrate or are absorbed, so would need a two-part system (and a lead apron for the user). No one of these modalities will cover every possible diagnosis (for instance, ultrasound is good for abdomens, but useless for brains except in babies). I'm not saying that a 'medical tricorder' will never be possible, but at the moment there is no way to miniaturise and combine all those different technologies into one device. Something like the GE Vscan is amazing, but that sort of device would be for crude imaging, like am I going to hit the artery with this introducer, is there fluid around the heart, is there a fetal heartbeat present. You'd be crazy to use a handheld scanner for detailed imaging and diagnosis.

That's correct - with the OTHER caveat is that interpreting the data is hard. Which is why we make radiologists sit in darkened rooms all day and night and it takes about 10 years to grow one.

There are limited areas where computer analysis has helped humans interpret radiological data (ie mammograms) but they aren't all good and typically just help out with the part of the analysis that humans are terrible at (looking at large quantities of boring data) rather than figuring out things on their own.

Re:Difficult

[Darinbob]

At a previous company we worked on hand held ultrasound before GE (and the thing in their commercials looks suspiciously like a prototype/patents we had so I may send off some emails to see what's up with that). Went away from that design since it was a bit bulky and inconvenient since there were a lot of electronics added to the transducer. Instead a portable hand carry device instead that has enough room to get top of the line image quality, but it can also be docked to a full size cart. People really want the hand held stuff for emergency rooms or disasters but not for day to day use. I think the biggest selling points were image quality and low cost and the portability was a "just in case we need it" afterthought.

But then this is just ultrasound. That doesn't give you a full range of stuff you need to know. It isn't good at detecting cracked bones, it won't handle cranial problems, some types of tissues it won't distinguish very well, it requires good training to use it well, etc. You'll need more than one type of modality. You can shrink down ultrasound but you won't have such luck with MRI. Then when you're done you still need to be good at diagnostics and you're going to need a human for that; ie is that lump part of a spleen or is it a tumor, is that a lesion or a shadow, is the liver missing or am I just holding it wrong? Computer imaging just isn't that good yet, and when the imaging does get that good then you need the AI part to determine what the image means.

The "everything all in one device" is pure fiction. You're going to need multiple devices to gather the data, and then you upload it all to a big computer to analyze. The problem is that all this stuff exists in a hospital but what you need these smaller devices for is for when you're not at a hospital and you may not even have network connectivity.

Now's your chance?

[pushing-robot]

If you've ever watched Star Trek and said, 'Hey, I could build that,' then why the fuck haven't you?

Re:Now's your chance?

[syousef]

If you've ever watched Star Trek and said, 'Hey, I could build that,' then why the fuck haven't you?

Because I sobered up?

Tricorder Misdiagnosed

[Lead Butthead]

I don't believe the tricorders as presented in varies incarnation of Star Trek TV shows/movies are actually capable of diagnosing any ailment; each device is merely a collection of high precision sensors. The physician holding the device is the one that is making the diagnoses base on the data presented by the device.

Re:Done

[alcourt]

Just for fun, I tried out that tool. I plugged in the symptoms I had when I cracked a rib. When I went to the doctor, the nurse diagnosed me before I even got to the exam room based just on watching me walk and hearing where the pain was. The software didn't even begin to ask the right questions, and assigned a 94% probability of something completely unrelated.

I also tried plugging in the symptoms I had a number of years back before I realized I had asthma. It's diagnosis was for several possibilities, none better than 24%.
However, a trained doctor, hearing me cough just once immediately recognized it as an asthma specific cough pattern.

So no, I wouldn't trust that tool over common sense, not even close.