Also according to the article, those hospitals run the software HIPAA-compliant in-house, whereas the free online service is intended for people who literally couldn't afford anything else.
The resolution and planes in modalities that are useful for visual diagnostics (which, again, are outdated as hell) are so expensive, I don't think the little AI script drawing over suspected lesions (something a PET can do much better, including staging and grading) is the cost factor here.
But, hey, you do you. If you're comfortable subjecting yourself or your loved ones to this, by all means, do it. Without a decent sensitivity and specificity review, without an actual review in general, and without a corporation whose jugular I can cut if they screw up and murder my patient through a misdiagnosis, I'll stay away from someone's home grown shoe box medicine as far as I can. And I know all my serious colleagues will and are as well. It's not like that's the first person this week (or even today) trying to sell us one of those.
"Currently, many countries cannot operate Treatment Machines (radiation therapy machines) and CT scanners simultaneously due to insufficient power supply.
This might be hard to imagine for countries like China or the USA, but hospitals in these countries do not have hardware with sufficient computing power, nor do they have the funds to purchase AI service software. There's also a lack of understanding about AI technology, and even the performance of computers used by doctors can't be guaranteed."
By all means if you can afford it, sign an actual contract with the company developing this product; the free plan wasn't meant for you.
> "Currently, many countries cannot operate Treatment Machines (radiation therapy machines) and CT scanners simultaneously due to insufficient power supply.
Yes, I know. I worked in Ghana. And, know what? Unless you're running a $5m/month Cyberknife or similar, you don't do those dual modality approaches. Most, literally all except five or six research hospitals in the US and EU, treatments still work (very well) with lead marker lines on patients. We image, we look at the image we stage, we localize, we take out a tape measure, we draw. It might sound archaic, but it works extremely well, especially in places like Ghana.
I'd seriously love to see "coolwolf"s experience in developing country cancer treatments. I mean, in developing countries we deal 95% with cervix, breast, liver and prostate. Neither are hard to image and localize/stage. In the case of higher stages, exploratory imaging is also done, but those lesions aren't of initially surgical or radioherapeutic concern. Those who are, can be localized by eye only. And that's the ones, that software outlines.
I am talking in terms of my experience Treating multiple brain Mets patients. They have lesions as small as 0.01cc which we treat using either GammaKnife or CyberKnife with zero margin for CTV. This accuracy won't be achieved easily with tape measurements AFAIK.
