> I am curious what the team building this looks like? Do they have ultrasound physicists and clinical practitioners in addition to the AI researchers?
Related to that point, I was so turned off by Midjourney's post about this because it absolutely reeked of all the red flags I've seen over the past 2 decades when Silicon Valley-types try to "disrupt" the medical field. The post was titled "Midjourney Medical", but it approached everything from a "wellness" perspective, i.e. how can individuals "optimize" their health by numerous scans/tests/analyses, it's a spa not a clinic, etc. etc.
Where were the research papers? The peer-reviewed articles? If you're truly trying to "disrupt" some area of medicine, it doesn't make you immune to the peer-review process.
I'll fully admit I'm not qualified to assess the claims made in the article, but if Midjourney wants to be taken seriously, I would hope they would avoid an approach that looks a lot more like Theranos in their early days, vs a sober analysis of how their tech compares to existing standards of care.
> The post was titled "Midjourney Medical", but it approached everything from a "wellness" perspective, i.e. how can individuals "optimize" their health by numerous scans/tests/analyses, it's a spa not a clinic, etc. etc.
Could this not be a regulatory thing? I am an idiot who knows nothing, but if I had a new device that I thought had medical potential, and I wanted to get some press, investment, maybe a little hype going before I was ready to seek regulatory approval, this is exactly what I would do, market it as a wellness device first, because if I say that my prototype is installed in a "clinic" i might start getting suspicious looks from the FDA that can make life harder when I do eventually apply for medical device approval.
Related to that point, I was so turned off by Midjourney's post about this because it absolutely reeked of all the red flags I've seen over the past 2 decades when Silicon Valley-types try to "disrupt" the medical field. The post was titled "Midjourney Medical", but it approached everything from a "wellness" perspective, i.e. how can individuals "optimize" their health by numerous scans/tests/analyses, it's a spa not a clinic, etc. etc.
Where were the research papers? The peer-reviewed articles? If you're truly trying to "disrupt" some area of medicine, it doesn't make you immune to the peer-review process.
I'll fully admit I'm not qualified to assess the claims made in the article, but if Midjourney wants to be taken seriously, I would hope they would avoid an approach that looks a lot more like Theranos in their early days, vs a sober analysis of how their tech compares to existing standards of care.