The soft is coded in Java (source code available on the linked website). As for hardware, I had no choice other than using the S-video output of a clinical ultrasound machine (Sonosite-S) through a frame grabber card (http://www.hauppauge.fr/site/products/data_hvr1975.html). The signal processing was done on a standard laptop from 2010.
The problem in using a clinical machine is that we had no access to the internals, and the video output was an interlaced PAL signal, which translated to a raw 100Hz 180*144 px numerical matrix, so the spatial definition could be much improved by using a better machine. And of course, getting access to the machine internals would allow the use of an optimal software solution, which we couldn't implement in our case.
This would definitely work, since the device has color flow Doppler, and the performance of the whole thing would mainly depend on the performance of the underlying machine (spatial & temporal definitions).
Our solution was not tested in the clinical setting yet, though.
Thanks for the link!
They are still quite rare in most places, actually. Only the brand new models have digital output. I was unlucky, because my hospital had just bought new machines not long before digital output became mainstream on the market. And so for now, we are stuck with analog.
No regrets I guess, you're showing promising results even at that crude resolution and analog contraption.
Can't wait for your setup to be done with less absurd hardware and data.
Do you think the medical hardware industry is ... "milking" their customers ? Do we need an ElonMusk kind of management to improve monitoring, nurse time at lesser cost ?
Thank you!
In my opinion yes, the medical hardware industry absolutely is milking their customer base. In ultrasound systems for example, you buy the machine equipped with the basic software at an already prohibitive price. After that, if you want to go beyond the basics, for example have the UI for cardiac measurements, you buy supplementary modules which are also very expensive although they are by now standard and well-known.
I also think that the healthcare system does not lend itself too well to aggressive management models. It does not improve things to try to get people as efficient as possible in the management sense. For example, I think patients are far better off if nurses are let free to do their jobs and tend to the patients instead of imposing too much control on them. Now of course, there are financial imperatives, and technology could provide solutions to maintain/improve care while diminishing the staff numbers/costs. That is my opinion as a practicing clinician. Others may think differently.
Thanks a lot for the details. I want to respect everybody in every domains. But I can't bear the absurd blindness of the market hand when it comes to health and safety. Especially since today's tech makes it obvious that many important tools [1]can be made for very accessible prices. Haa politics. Anyway, I'll keep an eye on your page and the BIG too. I wish I could contribute there.
[1] firefighter came to help my mother suffering from cardiac pain, the EKG monitor couldn't grab a cellphone signal in my whole area. They can't interpret the plot without a doctor so it's basically useless. They told us this things weren't cheap. Yet it's less useful than a 100$ smartphone.
The problem in using a clinical machine is that we had no access to the internals, and the video output was an interlaced PAL signal, which translated to a raw 100Hz 180*144 px numerical matrix, so the spatial definition could be much improved by using a better machine. And of course, getting access to the machine internals would allow the use of an optimal software solution, which we couldn't implement in our case.