Imaging Breakthrough "Sees" Lung Disease 114
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."
Damn. (Score:1, Insightful)
America is cold blooded.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
MRI machines cost about $2 million each.
Re: (Score:2)
I hear ya, that is nothing money wise...and the business buys it, so it is a write off as a business expense. This would be nothing...I've worked with doctors 15+ years ago that paid over $300K in taxes for personal taxes.....you can imagine the amount of money pulled in to warrant that amount of tax even
Fraud alert -- Possible fraud (Score:4, Interesting)
The BusinessWeek article says, amazingly, begging the question, "Its sales prospects are not just hot air"
Notice that, at present, there is no period at the end of that sentence, suggesting that the article received little or no attention from an editor.
Slashdot has run several stories about companies that had products that they were supposedly trying to bring to market, but which, on close examination, apparently were just methods of collecting investor money, with no real hope of return.
Roland Piquepaille, the author of the Slashdot story, is apparently paid to get articles in publications an on blogs. There has never been any information, that I know of, about whether he pays someone at Slashdot or Slashdot's parent company. His Slashdot stories apparently never note Mr. Piquepaille's affiliations with the companies being discussed.
Slashdot has often been scientifically challenged [slashdot.org]. The Slashdot article The Car That Makes Its Own Fuel [slashdot.org] has a +5 moderated First Post that expresses the consensus of the comments on that story.
Re: (Score:1)
There are already applications that can use signal analysis to determine the origins of sound waves without knowing the initial characteristics of the waves (for instance, mapping the movements of underground fault lines by measuring seismic waves, or determining the location & type of a gun based on its gunshot signature).
This device sounds like its an additional order of
No "imaging" is possible. (Score:2)
Also, the wavelengths of the sound are far, far to long to allow discrimination of small details.
You said, "Slashdot might be occasionally scientifically challenged, but you are definitely demonstrating how scientifically challenged YOU are."
It'
Actually (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
$40K is chump change. A decent MRI machine costs at least a couple of million dollars. Just starting up the machine can cost $100,000 (you don't turn them off when you're done). Upgrades generally run hundreds of thousands of dollars. More importantly, like x-rays, MRIs and CT-Scanners, not every doctor needs one. A specialist would have it or a radiology center would have it and the doctor sends you there to get the work done, just like x-rays, MRIs and CT scans.
If th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
This is like saying that an MRI is unlikely to be adopted because the thing it replaces (x-ray machines) are so much cheaper.
Or that you shouldn't expect anyone to purchase a $10,000 car when they're 16+ because the thing that a car replaces (..a bike..) is $2
Re: (Score:1)
Is that a lot? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Is that a lot? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Is that a lot? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
It's cheap, but might be overpriced. (Score:3, Insightful)
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
$40K is cheap (Score:2)
I think the idea is that this device is supposed to be CHEAPER than MRI or CT scanning.
cheap (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, yes, $40K is pocket change. A family pr
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea, but that's about what they billed me for 5 drops of morphine, 2 bags of saline, 1 bowl of gell-oh (the generic stuff) and some soup which I'm pretty sure was just beige-colored water.
Thanks Roland! (Score:1, Insightful)
Expensive? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Expensive? (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
$40grand? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It really is that simple.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If insurance companies refuse to cover it, very few Doctors & hospitals will buy it.
If it can eliminate the need for sending patients out for chest X-rays[0], the HMOs will mandate it. Hell, I can see them refusing to pay for a chest X-ray or MRI if you haven't been checked out on one of these first. If all it takes is the electricity to run it, some saline gel for the electrodes/transponder/whatever and an annual maintenance contract, this thing will save money hand over fist in some areas.
[0] Obviously not all patients, but (say) 30-50% of those who come in complaining of shortness of
Cost vs need (Score:5, Insightful)
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???
If it is there it will get used (Score:2)
A significant number of xrays and blood tests are run "just to make sure", not because a problem is expected.
If one of these lung viewers was available you can be sure it would get used to check out coughs and all sorts of complaints "just to make sure" and would find its way into medical examinations too.
Re: (Score:2)
An even more significant number are run because the doctor believes your insurance will cover it even if it's unrelated to your current problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Lung cancer (Score:2)
TFA didn't mention cancer, either as something that counld be detected or as something that could not. Anybody know???
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.deepbreeze.com/content.aspx?id=55 [deepbreeze.com]
amongst other diseases that could be detected:
http://www.deepbreeze.com/content.aspx?id=48 [deepbreeze.com]
Re: (Score:2)
where did I put that pack of Camels?
Camels come in herds and not packs.
They are definitely fatal [snopes.com].
Re: (Score:1)
"I think there is a world market for maybe 5 computers" - Thomas Watson, IBM Chairman, 1943
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is how useful it is. What we've seen from Rolands Silly Little Blurb is a breathless (pun intended) "improvement" on a classic diagnostic tool. I don't care how clever it is. I don't care really how much it costs. I do care if it is more accurate that traditional methods of diagnosing lung illness. If it isn't, it is worthless.
Color me cynical, as usual, but it isn't hard to diagnose asthma, pneumonia and most other lung diseases wit
Re: (Score:2)
Stone knives and bear skins. The "plain x-ray" is both expensive and time consuming. Not to even mention the potential harm from radiation exposure.
It just seems that everyone on slashdot is waiting for the total cure in a pill kind of medical breakthrough and these things don't happen often enough for us to spend our lifetime waiting around for it t
Costs (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
'cause they charge each and every patient 10x that for their time
Though I doubt it will cost you $500-$1000 if a doctor really spends an hour on you---likely much much more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Costs (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Operating most diagnostic imaging equipment is extremely simple... as long as you're not the one trying to determine what something means. Heck, most new CT and MRI setups have a preprogrammed voice telling the patient what to do for each study, so all the tech has to do is position them initially, watch to make sure they are OK, and push some buttons.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Cheers!
Re: (Score:2)
That'd explain it. Emergency response.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly enough, they required me to explicitly consent to being taken to a hospital even though my blood pressure was dangerously low and people had to pinch me and put ice on me to keep me conscious. Weird.
Cheers!
--
Vig
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that is because they are the Fire Dept and not EMTs. EMTs don't necessarily require your consent (although they can't force you, AFAIK).
$5 million for MRI machine (Score:2)
But using sound to create an image? This is exactly what an ultrasound does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
From TFA:
PICTURES, DANG IT (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.deepbreeze.com/Default.aspx?state=Int [deepbreeze.com]
Most of the links are broken but there's more under FAQ.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
http://meeting.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/abstr
Re: (Score:2)
Re:PICTURES, DANG IT (Score:4, Funny)
Oh sure. You say that, and get +5 Funny. I say that, and I get a visit from the police.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
So you're the guy who is comforted by meaningless stock photos and flow charts. Send me your resume, you have a future in our marketing department. ;)
Great. (Score:2)
40k? (Score:3, Informative)
When MRI and other can cost over $1 million, 40k isn't that much.
It's called Sonar :) (Score:1, Funny)
This article is dreck (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is active ultrasound (baby monitors, etc.) and passive ultrasound, which relies on picking up sounds produced by whatever processes you're trying to monitor. I agree that large amounts of the acoustic energy produced by biological processes
Follow-up on actual price (Score:1)
The representative also mentioned that it would include ill-tempered lab techs with laser beams strapped to their frikkin heads.
Imagine (Score:2)
My work is done here.
ubiquity = afordable (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice In Theory (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
$40K is Cheap (Score:2)
link to the abstract of the published paper (Score:1, Informative)
Dynamic Visualization of Lung Sounds with a Vibration Response Device: A Case Series.
Dellinger RP, Parrillo JE, Kushnir A, Rossi M, Kushnir I.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed &Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17551264&ordinalp os=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_Res ultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:1)
FDA Approval?! (Score:2)
Solomon
Re: (Score:1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDA_v._Brown_%26_Wil
Re: (Score:1)
They've basicall expanded to becoming the regulators of products that can affect peoples' health
Here are some pictures and videos (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.deepbreeze.com/ [deepbreeze.com]
Multimedia:
http://medgadget.com/archives/2007/07/video_of_vr
http://www.medgadget.com/archives/2007/07/new_pul
http://www.thieme.de/viamedici/aktuelles/wissensc
$40,000 to do a $2,000 job....? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not seeing the value of buying a new $40,000 toy...
Plus there is an added danger... to the patient's pocketbook.
I got to experience a claim denial because a particular machine
used in the diagnosis had only been in widespread use for a decade.
In the insurance companies mind, that meant it was 'experimental'
and therefore not covered. In this case the patient may be better
off with an expensive CT or MRI that is covered.
FDA "Approval" (Score:2)
??? What ??? (Score:1)
I'm a doc, but from the article I have no good idea what this thing does. Sound waves to reconstruct pictures... well, this is called an ultrasound, as somebody already pointed out. Air is a really terrible conductor of ultrasound waves, so usually you'd get a black picture if you just used a u/s probe (that's why they use that goop to do ultrasounds on pregnant women.) True, with a pneumonia, you'd get a denser view, but a regular stetho
Very nice description of technique... (Score:2, Informative)
Here is the best description I could find that is freely available (not in a protected journal.) http://www.ctsnet.org/sections/thoracic/newtechnol ogy/article-11.html [ctsnet.org]
The system basically has an array of sensors that sit over the patient's back, as they breathe in and out. It then displays an image from the sensors with a grey scale corresponding to the intensity of a given bin of frequencies observed by that sensor (and interpolated from nearby
list price of one week in a hospital? (Score:2)
Physicians will still use their ears (Score:3, Interesting)
$40k scaling down to $10k, and why not stethoscope (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:$40k scaling down to $10k, and why not stethosc (Score:2)
I agree, it won't replace the stethoscope, but there is only so much a stethoscope can do. This is another tool to add to the set, and it appears to be a very interesting and useful one at that. Think of all the other ways to get an image of the lungs...none are even remotely as cheap as this.
So no, it won't replace the stethoscope...but the stethoscope also won't stand in the way of this being adopted. Rather, I expect they will become complimentary tools.
They should call it ... (Score:2)
Replacing one stethoscope with many? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)