Slashdot Mirror
Fetuses Caught Yawning In 4D
Rambo Tribble writes "Reuters reports 4D scans have conclusively shown that fetuses do yawn. Understandable, eh? After all, all they get is cable."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
It is supposed to mean it has height, width, depth and time.
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
They're 2D images of 3D objects.
Nope. Ultrasound gives complete depth measurements. So each time step is an (X,Y,Z) data cube (actually (theta,phy,time)->response ), where response is the magnitude of the received sound in the microphone. Therefore each elenment in the video is therefore the tuple (X, Y, Z, T)->some value, i.e. 4 dimensional.
The video shown is just a projection, but ultrasound gives multiple depth readings, not just a single 2D manifold, so the raw data (obviously not the video here) is certainly 4D data.
So yeah, ultrasound does provide full 4D data and the files are immense.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
2D is the standard slice ultrasound. 3D is the voxel view that shows three-dimensional structure. 4D is just 3D, but with a fast enough computer to update smoothly. Usually 2D is the most use for medical purposes, as a skilled operator can put together the image in their head and see much more internal structure - but for an unskilled viewer, they just look like formless blobs. 3D/4D are most often seen in relation to the abortion debate, where they are the bane of the pro-choice side who can't quite come up with anything to counter the pure emotive imagery of 'Look at the cute baby suck it's thumb!'
Every "imaging system" is practically worthless without the knowledge to interpret the results. Images from say FISH-microscopy are equally incomprehensible to the layperson, though it looks pretty "because color". And only because you might actually know "oh, thats a knee on that x-ray" does not mean you will spot the arthrosis because e.g. the subchondral cysts will only be "blobs and splotches" to you.
Mind you, ultrasound has become really good lately. You wouldn't want to see images from the eighties in comparison to modern ones. And it is a dynamic imaging technique. Print-outs are only for documentation, seldom for interpretation. Every clinician worth his salt that wants to verify or understand the written diagnosis will want to re-sound it to see it first-hand.
Source: I do that, though not yet for a living.