john dooley wrote: > There are prototype/cutting edge machines which allow "4d" visualisation > such as you suggest. Its the sharp edge of the technology i think.
3D would do. 4D (i.e. animated in both space and time) is asking a bit much, although clinical use of fMRI is on the horizon. 3D visualisation from CAT or MRI scans is not really cutting edge these days - software is readily available and all PCs built in the last 5 or 6 years have plenty of horsepower to handle it in real-time, I'm told. What is needed is for radiologists to dump the scan data from their CAT and MRI machines in a format which is readable by the volumetric visualisation software - such formats are fairly well-defined, I understand. > Recently we had a scan done which gives 3d images but its monchromatic > and opaque allowing extenal visualisation -eg spina bifida - rather > than a transparent view with an edge outline of an organ and an abnormality I think it takes a bit more fiddling to add false colours dependent on density etc. But such value-adding is what radiologists (of the future) are for. > I have no doubt its coming. Question: could not digital versions of plain X-rays be provided in a way which optimally enhances contrast and edge-effects to highlight the structures or pathology of interest? Such transformations should be possible in the viewing software, but it may take trial-and-error and/or judgement to arrive at the best settings. That's another value-adding job for the radiologist: suggest optimal viewing settings for digital radiographs, or provide both unenhanced and enhanced versions of the image. This occurred to be yesterday as I was uploading some happy snaps from my digital camera into Picassa. There were a few with which I wasn't happy, so I clicked the "I'm feeling lucky" enhancement button in Picassa, and bingo, the photos looked much, much better. If Picassa (and similar software) can do that for complex colour photos, why can't it routinely be done for dull monochromatic X-rays? Because there is less information there to enhance, or because we still think of an Xray as a fixed collection of silver iodide particles representing the Bible-truth? Peter, it would be good to obtain learned responses from your patrons on these entirely ingenuous questions. Tim C > I recall on beyond tomorrow or similar a couple of months ago a story > representing lung scans as a laser 3d projection n colour on a special > viewing platform - obv not for a cd- (for treatment and visualisation > purposes. > > The DVD I got from that scan was more than a drink coaster... > > JD > > > Tim Churches wrote: >> Peter MacIsaac wrote: >> >>> At yesterdays radiology quality workshop it was suggested that radiology >>> images as currently delivered were only useful a drink coasters. >>> >>> Any views on what GPs want from radiology re images and the CD method of >>> delivery? >> >> In this age of powerful computers, I am amazed that CAT and MRI scans >> are still routinely presented as a series of slices which the viewer >> needs to synthesise into a mental image of the structures of interest. >> Radiologists and others accustomed to looking at such images all the >> time no doubt form the necessary neural connections to facilitate this, >> but for others, it is not so easy, and for patients, very difficult indeed. >> >> Why aren't CAT and MRI scans delivered in a form which provides 3D >> visualisation? Software to do the processing and visualisation is >> freely available - some superficial googling reveals >> http://www.itksnap.org/ or http://www.sph.sc.edu/comd/rorden/mricro.html >> - I am sure there are others. >> >> Of course, for the ultimate in imaging you can send your patients off >> for the VHP treatment - but warn them its a one-way trip: >> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/visible/visible_human.html >> >> Tim C >> >> PS As for delivery, I have already opined that cheap and highly scalable >> Web storage services such as Amazon S3 or the soon-to-launch OmniDrive >> are the future for exchange of large health-related files - without >> having to invest in infrastructure oneself: >> http://ozdocit.org/pipermail/gpcg_talk/2006-March/002533.html >> >> TC >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gpcg_talk mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk >> >> > > _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
