wondering if anybody has been exploring their imaging data. i’ve taken a dicom files and am trying to figure out a way to integrate them into pain issues i’m tracking. i converted mri dicom data to jpeg planes and have explored some various manipulations using max/msp/jitter. i would like to create a 3d body atlas that i can update without too great an effort, pain and imaged structures can be associated to snomed concept ids. there are dicom to mesh converters which i have not yet messed with, not sure if 2D limited angle views would be better to start with as i’d like this to be able to run in html5/canvas.
1 Like
Hi Jim, I know it has been a few weeks since your post, but I thought about you when I saw this story:
http://www.utexas.edu/know/2013/07/12/neuroscientist-russell-poldrack-studying-own-brain/
Tell me what you think.
1 Like
i think it’s awesome, thanks for sharing. the amount of data to explore especially serial MRIs is intense. interesting to see the variability of normal for imaging. there was a report not long ago that showed variability in images based on browsers used by radiologists. my goal with imaging is to move the images to patients, in particular ones that show pathology, without the tedium of obtaining disks or having to download proprietary visualizing software.
a fundamental belief i have is that as we increase the beauty of the systems that we use to capture data the greater the likelihood of participation.
There has been so much progress in both computer vision and hardware in the last decade, I would love to see people taking control of their own imaging.
There is so much we have to take on faith when we read reports. Some radiologists write reports based on image characteristics, some based on anatomy, some based on some combination.
When it comes to taking repeated measures over time, it is a mess. It is tedious for a single radiologist to track a patient over time. Often, the machines are completely different, the technicians working are completely different, the radiologists reading the report are completely different (and each have their own subjective style of report writing).
I personally had worsening stroke symptoms, but have to take it on faith that two completely differently written reports show “the same” result.
Imagine if a report missed mentioning a tumor becoming malignant, an aneurysm entirely, growth starting to look abnormal for a particular patient… How do we deal as patients?
Who else in the healthcare system really cares about patient experience? They will say they do, but they have so much work, I think the main goal is just getting through it all.
The little car on a map in Uber keeps a waiting rider from spiraling, I think a little transparency in healthcare would do the same.
Please. Please.
A friend recently was diagnosed with a rare cancer, now very obvious on imaging. First MRI showing the tumor was taken in January, following complaints about pain, but it was reported only as an “abnormal signal around the dens” with vague suggestions for follow up. Six months later, when the MRI showed extensive tumor around the cervical spine and skull base, the neurosurgeon recognized the tumor in the earlier image. But without a proper specialist asking the right question, a crucial early sign was missed. Note the problem here: you can’t get the specialist consult without the tumor being recognized by a non-specialist, but the non-specialist is less likely to recognize the tumor. Interesting, and frustrating, to note that a full decade after this thread was started, I still had to order the images to be delivered on on a disk, and I’m not at all sure what they will be like to work with.
1 Like
You clearly had an emotional response to your friend’s cancer.
Are you willing to speak to me about your experience?
I want to compare stories to see if there are commonalities between what happened to me and your friend.
I am on pacific daylight time, but with advance notice, I can meet at anytime.