That's super cool - and I don't know why we don't look into this as a replacement to provide a 3D mapping of parts of the body, for scans such as x-rays.
Another thing I'd like to see - why not both?
There're some very useful AI applications associated with being able to map between different forms of the same data;
With accurate enough processing, a low-end device using the cheaper of any two mechanisms could be used to emulate a more expensive high-end device.
(The way things are, this will most likely be implemented with a subscription model, a proprietary cloud processing engine, and a vendor locked operating system.)
The problem is that ultrasound just isn't very good for general imaging. The physics of ultrasound means that you must have direct skin contact with a gel mediator to couple the ultrasound into your skin. The signal cannot pass through open air.
Any type of ultrasound imaging would require removing your clothes, having the technician's hands on you, and you get covered in goop.
Compared to other imaging technologies, there's no contest. For x-ray, you simply stand in front of the plate, or put your body part on top of it. No disrobing, no goo, no one even has to touch you. With CT and MRI, you just put the body part (or whole body) in the scanner. Clothes and all.
Ultrasound has it's place, but it really is an inferior technology.
"inferior" technology? Let's not make value judgements on this. X-ray and MRI both have significant and different problems of their own that ultrasound doesn't have. Horses for courses.
This is not a value judgment and the concept of ultrasound does not have feelings you need to white knight for.
I'm stating the objective fact that ultrasound is worse at producing images than other imaging techniques. There is no "both sides" argument to be made here.
No, you said "but it really is an inferior technology.". It's not inferior if you need something completely safe, or if you're imaging something with good acoustic contrast, or if you need something that doesn't need its own room, or any other reason why you might prefer ultrasound over MRI or CT.
The fact that it's used at all would suggest a priori your comment is wrong.
Even if you want to restrict the scope of ultrasound being an inferior technology to only ultrasound being worse at producing images, that's not true either. Show me a CT or MRI showing what a Doppler ultrasound image shows, or that shows a real-time live 4-chamber view of the heart (to pick a couple of obvious examples - there are many more). So now you might say ultrasound is objectively worse at at producing images that CT and MRI excel at, at which point, what are you trying to say?
Another thing I'd like to see - why not both?
There're some very useful AI applications associated with being able to map between different forms of the same data;
With accurate enough processing, a low-end device using the cheaper of any two mechanisms could be used to emulate a more expensive high-end device.
(The way things are, this will most likely be implemented with a subscription model, a proprietary cloud processing engine, and a vendor locked operating system.)