7 ms·
Cool work and proof of concept, and very excited to see where this goes. However, I do think there is enough exaggeration and missing information here that it
by thaw13579 3mo ago
Cool work and proof of concept, and very excited to see where this goes. However, I do think there is enough exaggeration and missing information here that it warrants some critical appraisal. What's really missing is a comparison and validation with any existing medical imaging tech. Whole brain, contrast-free neurovascular imaging is essentially solved with MRI, why not run a scan and compare? Ultrasound is of course portable and less expensive, but MRIs are actually widely available in most cities at reasonable cost for medical workflows, and low-field brain MRI is addressing the portability and cost issues to some extent. I guess they are pitching this as a wearable "telepathy" device, which I think appropriately differentiates their product, but of course, this wording also invokes a framing that "you won't / don't need to know how it works," which invites skepticism and a higher bar for validation in my view.
- kyawzazaw 3mo agomost cities where?
- thaw13579 3mo agoHere are OECD and WHO reports on regional availability of MRI: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/health-at-a-glance-2025_8f9e3f98-en/full-report/diagnostic-technologies_9039027d.html https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/health-at-a-glance-2025... https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/total-density-per-million-population-magnetic-resonance-imaging https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-detai... Africa, Central & South America are clearly underserved, perhaps a good opportunity for ultrasound and low-field MRI
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- switchbak 3mo ago"MRIs are actually widely available in most cities at reasonable cost" - I live in one of those first-world countries, and our citizens regularly wait many months if not over a year to get a single MRI scan. Yes, it's not just an issue of the MRI but the entire medical system, but the point still stands. Were there machines that were one or more orders of magnitude cheaper and simpler to run - I think we would see a marked increase in availability. I agree on your ground-truth desire, and I would hope they've done a lot of that to validate what we see here.
- thaw13579 3mo agoI completely agree that's an issue, although more of an economic / public health policy issue than a technical one. There are low field MRI systems, such as the one made by Hyperfine that are, like you say, an order of magnitude cheaper and simpler to run. We should have these everywhere, IMO https://www.hyperfinemri.com/ https://www.hyperfinemri.com/
- scratcheee 3mo agoMRIs are fundamentally expensive. Yes we can bring the price down a bit, and we can set more money aside for them, but they’ll always be limited by their price. Even if this technique is much worse (I can certainly believe it is) the price might allow uses that would never be practical with MRI even with the best financial support. For example, ultrasound might be viable for use in GPs or small medical facilities which could never dream of justifying an MRI machine.
- thaw13579 3mo agoYes totally, and ultrasound already does wonders in that regard. It's a good strategy to focus on the specific use cases that match the strengths of the tech. I think MRI will be useful in validating and mapping out those cases.
- jmount 3mo agoWhy would they remain fundamentally expensive? It is a fixed machine (so eventually you recoup the investment) and running consumes nothing other than electricity and a paper gown. MRIs cost under $200 in Japan.
- virissimo 3mo ago> MRIs are actually widely available in most cities at reasonable cost Typical wait time for an MRI in Canada is 2 months.
- thaw13579 3mo agoYes, that is a economic & public health policy problem that really needs to be solved. We can look to Japan as example of what's possible, they have invested in nearly twice the number of scanners per capita of Canada, and they can get same-day MRIs for $50, roughly speaking.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- lostlogin 3mo ago> they can get same-day MRIs for $50 I’d like to see a breakdown on how they do that. Staffing alone is a multiple of that.
- thaw13579 3mo agoFrom what I know, seems like a mix of medical price fixing by the gov't, adoption of lower cost hardware, and universal healthcare. There's apparently less bureaucracy, perhaps because there is no need for negotiation at every step of the process?
- lostlogin 3mo agoThere are big costs. The hardware, the facility (RF cage and chillers), power, water, staff, RIS/PACS etc etc. I can’t see how you can do it for $50. Does the ‘universal healthcare’ bit mean that the government is paying most the bill and it’s $50 out of pocket?
- thaw13579 3mo agoYes, $50 was a rough out-of-pocket estimate, the amortized cost per scan for operation alone is probably on the order of hundreds of dollars per scan, assuming high utilization. One funny thing about MRIs is the magnet is always on, so there could be some clever ways to reduce costs running them after hours.
- janalsncm 3mo agoAs the article says, their ultrasound machine costs about as much as a smartphone. It’s about $4000. An MRI machine costs roughly 1000x as much.
- lostlogin 3mo ago> An MRI machine costs roughly 1000x as much. The running costs are also eye watering.
- 9dev 3mo agoNot your point, but… Do smartphones cost $4000 dollars now??
- fc417fc802 3mo agoNo but that's the order of magnitude. The high end is commonly a bit over $1k.
- ThrowawayTestr 3mo agoThe foldables are around 2k
- runako 3mo agoA $1m machine with (say) $100k of annual operating costs with a 10-year lifespan. Assume low cost of capital, call it $200k/year for those 10 years. The machine itself covers its cost at only ~84 monthly scans @ $200 each. That says to locate near population centers where the demand exceeds 84 scans. At the global mean of scans/population, said "population centers" only need to be about 15k residents. Labor costs + junk fees make them appear expensive.