Slashdot Mirror


Revitalizing Medical Imaging With Ultrasound-On-a-Chip

catchblue22 writes: MIT Technology Review has an article about a device being developed by Butterfly Network that aims to make medical imaging dirt cheap. From the article: "Butterfly's patent applications describe its aim as building compact, versatile new ultrasound scanners that can create 3-D images in real time. Hold it up to a person's chest, and you would look through 'what appears to be a window' into the body, according to the documents. ... Most ultrasound machines use small piezoelectric crystals or ceramics to generate and receive sound waves. But these have to be carefully wired together, then attached via cables to a separate box to process the signals. Anyone who can integrate ultrasound elements directly onto a computer chip could manufacture them cheaply in large batches, and more easily create the type of arrays needed to produce 3-D images."

47 comments

  1. Anyone has a link to a patent app? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Would've been nice if TFA linked to the patent application, for the sake of completeness.

    1. Re:Anyone has a link to a patent app? by Racemaniac · · Score: 1

      and if it's patented, i doubt the dirt cheap claim will become true anytime soon.
      why would they offer it dirt cheap if they can just make it a bit cheaper than current solutions and get a lot of profit

    2. Re:Anyone has a link to a patent app? by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      Good point however sometimes dirt cheap has association attached to it, so maybe dirt cheap in the realm of medical devices, or again, sometimes, it's considered beneficial to go for quantity and license the IP for a reasonable fee to many vendors on the hope that a small slice of a much bigger pies is better.

      If for instance this allowed 3D ultrasound technology drop to a consumer price point maybe the profitable strategy is to license it cheap to everyone and collect a few bucks on the sale of every iPhone 7 or Galaxy 6.

    3. Re:Anyone has a link to a patent app? by binarylarry · · Score: 2

      dirt cheap to manufacture, no one said anything about dirt cheap to buy.

      Medical equipment is a huge scam, makes $500 dollar hammers look like a walmart special.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    4. Re:Anyone has a link to a patent app? by Adriax · · Score: 1

      Hey, they have to have some justification to charge people 2 months of an average middle class salary for a pair of tylenol.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    5. Re:Anyone has a link to a patent app? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      " i doubt the dirt cheap claim will become true anytime soon."

      Not because it's patented, but because it's a medical device. You have to go through the FDA grinder, assuring that your device will be years over budget and priced out of patient reach.

    6. Re:Anyone has a link to a patent app? by feenberg2303 · · Score: 1

      They might forgo calling it medical equipment. If they call it a toy, they don't have to have FDA approval. It isn't invasive or anything and kids might have fun with it - as good as x-ray specs.

    7. Re:Anyone has a link to a patent app? by Enokcc · · Score: 1

      Would've been nice if TFA linked to the patent application, for the sake of completeness.

      https://www.google.com/url?sa=...

    8. Re:Anyone has a link to a patent app? by mspohr · · Score: 1

      And if it's a medical device, by the time the doctors get hold of it and charge their "special" markup (because we can), it will be no cheaper (and probably more expensive) than existing ultrasound.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    9. Re: Anyone has a link to a patent app? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Sir or Madam,

      It takes quite an investment of time & resources to learn what one is even looking at on a medical image, let alone to determine what is normal, what is not normal, and what should be done next. FDA regulation & patent protection add cost, but help ensure quality & sufficient return to make it worth doing - not every company is a massive, profit hog; some medical device companies are small shops with a few engineers trying to make a living helping others.

      -a physician

  2. Butterfly? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

    I remember another "Butterfly Something" company that also had a "Something-On-a-Chip" product, are they related?

    1. Re:Butterfly? by carnivore302 · · Score: 1

      you mean the "Butterfly something" that promised to ship something plus the chip, but time chipped away and something had to give?

      --
      Please login to access my lawn
    2. Re:Butterfly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. The "Butterfly something" that had a "Something-on-a-chip" to mine "SomethingCoins" for "much profits".

      Funnier if you read that with Dr. Evil's voice and his fingers doing every "quote".

    3. Re:Butterfly? by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      Sooo it might hijack your brain to mine bitcoins. Big deal :P

    4. Re:Butterfly? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Sooo it might hijack your brain to mine bitcoins. Big dealÂ:P

      The average person only uses something like 20% of their brain anyhow. This will put those wasted clock cycles to use.

  3. Info on medical imaging, for those interested by mha · · Score: 4, Informative

    https://www.edx.org/course/uqx...

    The course's contents is still accessible. "Episode 3" is about Ultrasound.

    All videos from the course on Youtube (there is a lot more content on edX - text and images):

    https://www.youtube.com/channe...

    Look for "Brian has an Ultrasound" in that list (after loading all videos under that account) and go backwards (left and up) in the list for all videos on ultrasound.

    The course/the videos are really interesting!

  4. Butterfly + Raspberry Pi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given that Raspberry has just released an integrated screen module, this would seem to be a perfect fit for a system at a very low cost. Might not have the horsepower to support full 3-D goodies, but it would be a boon for areas with limited medical technology.

    Just so the trolls have something to chew on, the wide availability of $10 ultrasounds in some cultures is leading to heavily-male sex selection.

  5. Yawn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I did this with my arduino a few years ago. Got the parts at Microcenter.

  6. More easily available ultrasounds? by jigawatt · · Score: 1

    I expect to see opposition to this from some pro-choicers.

    1. Re:More easily available ultrasounds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Pro-choicers are pro-choice. They don't oppose giving women choices. That's why they are pro-choice. The clue is in the name.

    2. Re:More easily available ultrasounds? by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      I expect to see opposition to this from some pro-choicers.

      Uh... why, exactly?

    3. Re:More easily available ultrasounds? by jigawatt · · Score: 1

      Some (not all) pro-choicers are de facto pro-abortion. Why does Planned Parenthood charge moms for ultrasounds while cpc's all over the country give them for free?

      Interestingly, the quote at the bottom of slashdot right now is - "Everyone is entitled to an *informed* opinion." -- Harlan Ellison

      This is exactly what an ultrasound does - it gives the mom more information and makes her more informed. Why do some Planned Parenthood clinics (like in New Jersey) not even do ultrasounds unless the mom already wants an abortion? Why do other PP clinics do ultrasounds but not let the mom see them, even if they ask? I'll go ahead and answer: when moms see an ultrasound they are way more likely to not abort. A more informed mother means less money for PP. Simple as that.

    4. Re:More easily available ultrasounds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because planned parenthood provided free services to those who can't afford to pay, not to everyone they're trying to manipulate? Why ask Slashdot? You seem to know so much about this. Took me a while to figure out what a CPC was. Why would you do an unneeded ultrasound? They cost time and money. Planned Parenthood has to be careful with how it spends its money, because there are lots of good uses. They provide very inexpensive birth control to a huge number of people. If they're goal was to make money performing abortions, why would they do that? See how silly asking stupid questions is?

    5. Re:More easily available ultrasounds? by jigawatt · · Score: 1

      Because planned parenthood provided free services to those who can't afford to pay, not to everyone they're trying to manipulate?

      So offering true pertinet information to someone in an effort to help them make a more informed choice would be manipulating them? And I suppose things like lying about fetal development and covering up rape are not manipulative? Cause that's what Planned Parenthood does to help moms make their choice.

    6. Re: More easily available ultrasounds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one is pro-abortion, you moron.

      Wanting abortion safe & legal != wishing there were 100x more abortions occurring

    7. Re: More easily available ultrasounds? by jigawatt · · Score: 1

      No one is pro-abortion, you moron.

      Some people are. And some of them work for your local Planned Parenthood affiliate. See - http://liveaction.org/projects - for more details.

  7. With the GOP this easy pre existing conditions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the GOP back in power this will make it easy to get on the pre existing conditions black list.

  8. Hanz und Franz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Und vie rrrr going tu pump *kuchu* du up!

  9. Re:Butterfly Labs by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    There was this recently: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  10. Internet of Things by Falos · · Score: 1

    BUT WHY DOESN'T IT BEAM IT TO YOUR SMARTPHONE lN AN APP SO YOU CAN SHARE SCANS ON FACETWEET

    these guys clearly know nothing about how to take a simple process and fuck it up

  11. "Revitalizing"? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    You keep using that word - but I do not think it means what you think it means.

    The medical imaging industry seems to be going gangbusters already - it's not a field in need of revitalization.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:"Revitalizing"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but I think they mean revitalizing the field of LOW COST medical imaging.

    2. Re:"Revitalizing"? by mustermark · · Score: 0

      Agreed. It's just doublespeak.

      If he really wanted to help, he would make MRI cheaper, because it is far more informative than ultrasound.

    3. Re:"Revitalizing"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah and if Alexander Graham Bell had given a shit he'd have developed a way for humans to communicate telepathically because that's far more useful than a telephone.

      Seriously, do you even think before you hit Submit?

    4. Re:"Revitalizing"? by X-Ray+Artist · · Score: 1

      "If he really wanted to help, he would make MRI cheaper, because it is far more informative than ultrasound."

      Not necessarily. Each medical imaging modality has its purpose. Ultrasound shows what is happening in real time. Eventually mainstream MRI will, too. Because of the required magnetic fields, I doubt MRI will ever be as portable as Ultrasound.

      --
      I would have a sig but I am too busy updating programs and restarting my computer
  12. Tricorder? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Folks this is a tricorder! I remember seeing a similar concept using micropulse radar, but it apparently did not pan out.

  13. Re:RSS Feed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am eligible to disable ads, and I've got the box checked... lo and behold, there's ADS ON THE FUCKING PAGE.

    FUCK YOU DICE. DIE IN A FIRE.

    (And yeah, dumbass me forgot to install noscript on this box... that's fixed now. Thanks for reminding me.)

  14. Bulk modulus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The acoustic mismatch between soft tissue, bone, and lung guarantees that if you place a device like this against the chest you will not see “what appears to be a window." Unless, of course, you mean a window that has had boards nailed over it and a sheet covering half of it.

    Sonography: Principles and Instruments by Frederick W. Kremkau, and Technology for Diagnostic Sonography by Wayne Hedrick are both excellent books that I highly recommend to the developers of this product.

  15. Use by us by mcswell · · Score: 1

    That was my first thought. I recall seeing the tech do ultrasounds of my pregnant wife, and saying "see, there's the baby, and let's see, it's a girl/boy." I completely had to take their word for it; to me it was like looking at clouds. Admittedly that was a long time ago, maybe the technology is better now.

    As for the FDA, I don't know that they should get involved; so long as it's marketed to the public as an interesting gadget/toy, rather than a medical tool.