First-Ever Color X-ray on a Human (home.cern) 59
What if, instead of a black and white X-ray picture, a doctor of a cancer patient had access to color images identifying the tissues being scanned? From a post: This is now a reality, thanks to a New-Zealand company that scanned, for the first time, a human body using a breakthrough color medical scanner based on the Medipix3 technology developed at CERN. Father and son scientists Professors Phil and Anthony Butler from Canterbury and Otago Universities spent a decade building and refining their product. Medipix is a family of read-out chips for particle imaging and detection. The original concept of Medipix is that it works like a camera, detecting and counting each individual particle hitting the pixels when its electronic shutter is open. This enables high-resolution, high-contrast, very reliable images, making it unique for imaging applications in particular in the medical field. Hybrid pixel-detector technology was initially developed to address the needs of particle tracking at the Large Hadron Collider, and successive generations of Medipix chips have demonstrated over 20 years the great potential of the technology outside of high-energy physics.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Many machines at CERN. New machines...
Software (Score:2)
Looks like they would need software to focus on different depths/cross sections - but the picture does look pretty cool. I doubt this will completely replace the tradition x-ray though where you can see everything in one picture in one go.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me blow your mind about the use of software to enhance x-rays to make a 3d image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I loved the caption for the picture that said it was a wrist with a watch around the outside and showing finger bones in white. If that person has finger bones in their wrist it's a good thing they got an x-ray. I hope they also have a really good reconstructive surgeon to put them back where they belong.
The tendons run back from the fingers through the wrist and there are many bones in the in the wrist itself. They are called the wrist bones, strangely enough.
You can make it 3D (Score:1)
They should be able to make this a 3D color X-ray by using two or more exposures at different power settings. There are applications that such a thing would be superior to MRI.
Re:You can make it 3D (Score:5, Informative)
They should be able to make this a 3D color X-ray by using two or more exposures at different power settings. There are applications that such a thing would be superior to MRI.
Except that MRI's do not relay in dangerous radiation like the X-Ray to produce their images and are much safer when used repeatedly as a result.
I'm all for new imaging technologies (CAT scans, X-Rays, MRI, Ultrasound, PET scans and more), each has it's proper use and place in medical diagnostic use, the more tool choices we have the better. However, I'm not looking to completely replace current MRI with something that depends on X-Ray's for imaging due to safety concerns..
Re: (Score:1)
Of the 26 words and 2 numbers in your post, zero are informative to the topic at hand. Thus you would have been less uninformative if you did not use any words or numbers at all.
On the other hand, his reply was informative, and in no way did his improper use of apostrophes hinder the understanding of his message.
Re:You can make it 3D (Score:5, Funny)
Of the 5 apostrophes in your post, 3 are grammatically incorrect. Thus you would have less errors if you did not use apostrophes at all. Nice post, BTW.
Fewer.
Re: You can make it 3D (Score:1)
I could care fewer
Re: You can make it 3D (Score:4, Funny)
I could care fewer
You couldn't care fewer.
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't give less fuchs
much better article and picture (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Pics, or it didn't happen! (Score:2)
Oh, wait, ... yeah, got it.
Not really color, maybe not novel? (Score:5, Informative)
OK, these are cool images. However, I do think this is a bit biased toward the marketing-friendly description on the product page (marsbioimaging.com).
First, calling this a "color" image is not correct. Just as with radar, sonar, MRI, or anything else that captures non-visible light, what we are seeing is "false color". The distinction is that someone mapped signal values to colors, and that implies that those nice pics probably had some human input to make appropriate color choices (and not blue flesh, red bones, or whatever).
Second, this is not the first spectral CT, as the article seems to imply. Check out for example https://www.itnonline.com/article/spectral-imaging-brings-new-light-ct for a summary of what commercial offerings were available 3 years ago.
Don't get me wrong, it sounds like great stuff -- but there seems to be significant hype here, too.
Re: (Score:2)
First, calling this a "color" image is not correct.
If they are using different energy levels of X-rays, then it's equivalent to color.
I don't get it. (Score:2)
How is this different from false color generation based on tissue density? Do different tissues fluoresce (different wavelength out than the one coming in) and this thing detects the spectrum of the fluorescence and assigns colors on the display accordingly?
Technically it's colorization, or false color (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of like how the TSA scanners highlight my Glock every time I try to sneak it through the security line.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're part of the 5% [go.com] the TSA does find when they do their tests.
What does color mean when there's no visible light (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is false-colour not real colour imaging. The colours are based on density, not the true colour.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The use of multiple energy x-ray beams to determine atomic composition has been around for a long time. It's been a common feature of commercial CT scanners for 10 years. The idea would be that by making crude two-point measurements of the absorption spectrum, you could measure the quantity of an atom of interest - for example, if the patient had been given an
Re: (Score:2)
Serious question.... Last time I checked, absent any visible light source, nothing has any visible color. Or are they going to shine a *really* bright light on a person and exploit any translucency their skin and organs might have to image them in color?
To answer the general question, you could easily shift (and, if necessary, compress) the wavelengths of the X-rays back to the visible spectrum. That probably isn't the best strategy for creating a useful image, so it wouldn't be what this specific device is doing. I would imagine you would get a more useful image if you map specific X-ray wavelengths to specific colors, so that you get the desired color contrast (e.g. between muscle tissue and other organ tissues).
What color are x-rays? (Score:2)
x-ray glasses (Score:1)
I predict ... (Score:2)
Lots of color-blind x-ray specialists will get fired soon.
My first thought (Score:1)
Na... (Score:1)
Hopefully an color x-ray movie soon. (Score:3)
Nice to see the announcement of a color x-ray.
But, knowing how much normal x-rays, 3D mammograms, CAT, NMRs and other 30+ year old technologies still cost, I doubt that many folks in the sub $250K/yr category will be able to afford a color x-ray, much less a color x-ray movie in 3D, if the technology advances in a timely manner. Many hospitals and clinics are still charging up to $7000 for an ultrasound without insurance, but around $300-$600 with insurance. This is pitiful since a new top-tier ultrasound machine is priced at less than $50K, refurbished.
So, after 100 readings via insurance the machine is paid off. That will take a month at 4 readings a day. For the next several years, minus maintenance, the income from ultrasounds, a 30+ year old technology, is pure profit.
If they charged just $50 per reading they could pay off the machine in 10 months and still be reaping lots of profit, just not enough to allow the CEO and upper management to retire when they are 50.