#tomography

[reality-detective]

Tomographer who worked for HAARP explaining how the technology can cause earthquakes. 🤔

[materialsscienceandengineering]

Neutron scattering instrument represents a new dawn for AI-powered atomic-scale 3D imaging

The Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory added a new neutron scattering instrument to its powerhouse of discovery at the Spallation Neutron Source, charting new territory for neutron imaging through artificial intelligence. In July, DOE's Office of Science approved the final commissioning of the Versatile Neutron Imaging Instrument, or VENUS. "It's a dream come true," said ORNL neutron scattering scientist Hassina Bilheux. "It has been an honor and privilege to work with so many talented people dedicated to seeing VENUS through." Thanks to its cutting-edge features and the world's most intense pulsed neutron beams, VENUS will help transform research in multiple areas of science. These include energy storage for better batteries, materials science for more efficient building materials, plant physiology for drought-resistant plants and more.

Read more.

[leaping-laelaps-art]

X-ray microtomography 3D model of a bioeroded limestone pebble given to me by a friend who wanted to know what the holes were. Not technically art but I think it looks cool.

I identified 4 distinct types of borings (ichnotaxa) in this 3-cm pebble:

Entobia cf. cretacea (white): typical sponge borings, composed of interconnected chambers and exploratory threads; by far the dominant ichnotaxon in the sample (97% of bioeroded volume).

Caulostrepsis taeniola (blue): U-shaped borings made by polychaete worms (e.g. spionids).

Unnamed Caulostrepsis ichnospecies (cyan): long and tightly U-shaped borings, possibly also made by polychaete worms.

Trypanites solitarius (green): simple unbranched borings that can be produced by many different organisms (polychaetes, bryozoans, phoronids).

(A-B) Full sample. (A) External view. (B) Virtual mould of the borings. (C-G) Virtual moulds of individual borings. (C-E) Caulostrepsis taeniola (note the variability in size). (F) Caulostrepsis unnamed ichnospecies. (G) Trypanites solitarius.

Experiments with limestone bricks show that bioerosion comparable in nature and extent to the one showcased here can develop after 3-4 years (Färber et al. 2016), providing a rough estimate of the time elapsed between this rock fragment first being exposed and it washing onto the shore where my friend picked it up.

References:

Bromley, R. G. (1972). On some ichnotaxa in hard substrates, with a redefinition of Trypanites Mägdefrau. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 46(1), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02989555

Bromley, R. G. (2004). A Stratigraphy of Marine Bioerosion. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 228, 455–479. https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.2004.228.01.20

Bromley, R. G., & D’Alessandro, A. (1983). Bioerosion in the Pleistocene of Southern Italy: Ichnogenera Caulostrepsis and Maeandropolydora. Rivista Italiana Di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia, 89(2), Article 2.

Bromley, R. G., & D’Alessandro, A. (1984). The ichnogenus Entobia from the Miocene, Pliocene and Pleistocene of southern Italy. Rivista Italiana Di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia, 90(2), Article 2.

Färber, C., Titschack, J., Schoenberg, C., Ehrig, K., Boos, K., Baum, D., Illerhaus, B., Asgaard, U., Bromley, R., Freiwald, A., & Wisshak, M. (2016). Long-term macrobioerosion in the Mediterranean Sea assessed by micro-computed tomography. Biogeosciences, 13, 3461–3474. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-3461-2016

[itsgerges]

Best Regards The Gravitational Waves Reflection In The Solar System (Analytical Study) (Revised) https://app.box.com/s/yx3tx5lsvwy4025p4j3mwfeliwhtka07 or https://app.box.com/s/9wywdejkxqh7x4g791ntf3p3p01kkm8f or https://www.tumblr.com/itsgerges/759715471336570880/the-gravitational-waves-reflection-in-the-solar?source=share or https://gerges2022.livejournal.com/236389.html

Abstract Paper question How Is Planet Velocity Defined? Paper Hypothesis No. (1) The solar system is one energy moves in space and reflects 3 times - the points of the reflection are the planets- as a result- the planets are created depending one each other by this energy reflection. The Explanation Of The Hypothesis No. (1) I- Preface Why do we need to define Planet velocity here? Because Planet velocity definition disproves The Solar System Classical Description. II- The hypothesis Explanation in details 1 The Energy Reflection Definition 2 The Energy Reflection Proves 3 The Energy Reflection Result 4 The Energy Reflection Objective 5 Saturn Creation Depends On Uranus And The Earth Let's explain the previous items in following I- Preface

Why do we need to define Planet velocity before any other discussion in this paper? Because Planet velocity disproves The Solar System Classical Description. The classical description refutation is a great event because the theories depend on it and – that means- more than 12 theories are wrong in the modern physics book Shortly- more than the half of the modern physics book provides imaginary ideas and wrong theories because the solar system classical description is wrong. Let's see examples to explain that clearly Example No. (1) No Planet Moves By The Sun Gravity- Newton is wrong- I have proved this fact since long time- and I explained that- Planet moves by the force caused its creation- means- the planet creation and motion is done by one force only otherwise this planet would be broken- simply – if two forces have effects on the same planet it would be broken- means- the planet moves with its creation force- again No planet moves by the sun gravity- The example shows a gap between the physics book and the solar system facts – Newton imaginary idea is believed by everyone since 400 years! But- the example doesn't show how great the gap is- in fact the shock is coming from The Sun Nuclear Fusion Theory- let's see the next example Example No. (2) The Sun Is Created By The Planets Motions Energies–The Sun Is A Phenomenon Here we can see the gap clearly The solar planets were found in their orbits before the sun creation and the planets were revolving around a point in space (this point has no light) The planet motion produces energy (1/2 mv^2) and this energy is stored in the space in waves form- the planets were revolving around this point for long periods till the stored motion energy in the space be massive energy-

From this massive motion energy the light beam is created (the sun rays is created) The sun rays is created from this energy- that tells why the sun corona temperature is 5 millions Kelvin but the sun surface is 5800 Kelvin- simply- because The Sun Is Not Doing Nuclear Fusion To Produce Its Rays, the rays is created by the planets motions energies– The Sun Rays Show The Great Gap Between The Physics Book And The Facts The wrong description is the reason behind the imaginary ideas and wrong theories in the physics book- one more example- the scientists won Nobel prize in physics for their discovery for the gravitational waves- these scientists told us – the gravitational waves are produced by the sun gravitational field which is NOT FACT– the gravitational waves are produced by Planet motion energy- where the planet moves and produces energy (1/2 mv^2) and the planet can't store its motion energy inside its body otherwise its temperature would be raised for that the planet motion energy is stored in the space In Waves Form- the scientists discovered these waves and they called them gravitational waves!! Let's provide one more example

Example No. (3) The big bang theory tells us the planet creation is done by random process- in details- the theory tells–some planets are suffered from collisions and these collisions changed their diameters and masses- by that we can't know their original diameters and masses by that the current values of these diameters and masses are found by chance and without any geometrical reasons and should be considered random data- For example- Jupiter diameter now is 142984 km but what's this diameter value in the first creation of Jupiter? The big bang theory and all random creation ideas are wrong and nonsense- shortly- I have my planet diameter equation which proves Planet diameter is created based on a geometrical rule- means- for example- Jupiter diameter is created at first as 142984 km and never changed since its creation- if any planet had collision and changed its diameter this collision results would be recorded in this planet motion features- as happened with Mars- Mars original orbit was between Mercury and Venus and Mars had migrated to its current orbit- and Mars had collided with Venus and The Earth in its migration motion- but Mars diameter equation refers frequently to its original orbit features and data- that tells the planet motion provides a record for its history because all data is required for planet motion- by that – all data depends on geometrical rules and no random process is used in it – let's introduce my planet diameter equation in following…. Planet Diameter Equation (v1/v2)= (s/r)= I v = Planet Velocity and r = Planet Diameter s= Planet Rotation Periods Number In Its Orbital Period I= Planet Orbital Inclination (example, 1.8 degrees be produced as a rate 1.8) v2, s, r and I are belonged to one planet and v1 is belonged to another planet The planet (v1) is defined by test the minimum error

Earth Equation uses Neptune velocity

Mars Equation uses Pluto velocity

Jupiter Equation uses the Earth moon velocity

Saturn Equation uses Mars velocity

Uranus Equation uses Neptune velocity (As Earth)

Neptune Equation uses Saturn velocity

Pluto Equation uses the Earth moon velocity (As Jupiter) (The Equation works from The Earth To Pluto) (the discussion explains the reason) Example Neptune Equation (89143 /49528) = 9.7/ 5.4 =1.8 89143 = Neptune rotation periods number in Neptune orbital period 49528 km = Neptune diameter 9.7 km/s = Saturn velocity 5.4 km/s = Neptune velocity 59800 days = Neptune orbital period (and Neptune rotation period =16.1 hours) 1.8 degrees = Neptune Orbital Inclination The equation tells planet diameter is created based on its velocity –means- Neptune diameter is 49528 km because Neptune velocity is 5.4 km/s The Equation Concept Planet diameter should be a function in its orbital distance –otherwise- this planet would be broken by its motion- the fact is that – The necessary requirement for planet safe motion is to create a function between this planet diameter and its orbital distance BUT- the designer can't create a function has only 2 variables (Planet diameter and its orbital distance)- the function in this case can't be useful because – If this planet changes its orbital distance its diameter would be broken also because the diameter is a direct function in the orbital distance without any other variables -As A Result The designer created the planet diameter as a function in this planet rotation period and the planet rotation period is created as a function in this planet velocity and the planet velocity is created as a function in this planet orbital distance- by that- the function between the planet diameter and its orbital distance is created but the function contains also more variables (rotation period, orbital period and velocity)- by that- if the planet changes its orbital distance- this planet diameter will not be changed but its rotation period, orbital period, and velocity will be changed and the diameter will be saved- NOTICE-Mars is the example for this theory because Mars original orbit was between Mercury and Venus and Mars had migrated from its original orbit to its current one- after Migration Mars changed its motion data but the diameter is saved

NOTICE- Planet diameter equation is very useful to analyze the energy reflection in the solar system because the equation shows the changes in data resulting from the energy reflection- for example- the equation produces the planet orbital inclination-but in Saturn equation- the equation produces the value (0.4) while we know Saturn orbital inclination is 2.5 degrees- the value (0.4) is produced because the energy is reflected in Saturn and that caused effect on the data by that the value (2.5) become (1/2.5) = 0.4- that's why I refer to my planet diameter equation in this discussion because the equation can work as a tool of anatomy which can see clearly what's happening for the energy in each planet- Matter Definition My planet diameter equation provides a new definition for the matter – this definition is found to answer the question- (How Can Planet Velocity And Motion Be Defined Before This Planet Creation?)

What's The Matter And How Is Created? The matter and space are created from the same one energy and both move with the motion of this energy from which they are created- but- the matter creates for itself a distinguish form and moves by different velocity from the space motion (notice the gravitational waves prove the space has motion and not static). This is similar to the sea of water- the space is similar to the sea of water and the matter is similar to a whirlpool (vortex) found on the sea page- The whirlpool (vortex) is created by the sea water and it's carried by the sea water motion- spite of that- the whirlpool is different in its form from the sea waves – also the whirlpool moves by different velocity from the sea waves motion velocity- this example gives explanation for the matter definition- the matter is similar perfectly to the whirlpool on the sea page- it's created by the sea water motion but it has a distinguish form and different velocity from the sea waves- Also The whirlpool dimensions depend on the sea water motion features- for example – we have a whirlpool its diameter is 2 meters, this diameter is formed by the sea water motion features (the water velocity- amount-pressure -……etc) that tells the whirlpool is found later after the sea creation- and the water motion is found before the whirlpool creation- this meaning is a fact for the matter creation and dimensions- the matter dimensions are created based on this matter motion- means- the motion is defined before the matter creation- this is proved strongly by my planet diameter equation- the equation tells (for example) Neptune diameter is 49528 km because Neptune velocity is 5.4 km/s- the whirlpool idea explains how the planet matter data is defined based on its motion- because The original energy was found in motion at first and the planet matter is created from this moving original energy and the planet matter dimensions are defined by this original energy motion features- after the planet creation, the planet moves with this original energy motion means the planet moves this same motion based on which the planet data is created that's why the planet data is in full harmony with the planet motion features. Also the idea shows the planet motion reason- as I proved before- no planet moves by the sun gravity- Newton is wrong- because the planet creation and motion are done by one force only otherwise this planet would be broken if two forces have effects on it Here we see the planet motion reason- the planet moves with the original energy from which this planet is created- What's the original energy? The original energy is one light beam energy- because – the solar planets and their distances are created from one energy and this energy is provided by one light beam –means – the planets are geometrical points found on the same one light beam and the planets move with this light beam motion- By that the planets are similar to carriages in one train and the light beam is this train engine- the light motion causes all planets motions NOTICE - this definition of the matter and planet is very important for our discussion because the paper hypothesis no. (1) tells – the solar system is one energy moves in the space and reflected on some points and these points are the planets- the reflection of energy discussion will show how each planet data and motion depend on the other planet motion by the energy reflection effect- shortly- (The Planet Is A Geometrical Point) this idea is the best one can explain the energy reflection data- by that we can understand how the energy motion and reflection can effect on the planet creation and motion- the energy reflection discussion is found in the paper first hypothesis explanation.

Planet Velocity Definition

Again let's ask ……Why Do We Need To Define The Planet Velocity? ………. Because – the planet velocity definition refutes the solar system classical description- the definition proves the planet is a geometrical point on the moving energy (and refute the classical definition tells – planet is a solid body created independently from the space and other planets) – in fact the planets are created depending on each other – The 9 planets are as 9 knots or snarls on the same one rope or cable – No planet is created independently– also all of them are created by the same one motion and the same one reason- (imagine you have a ladder or stairs is consisted of 9 units- all units are similar and found for the same reason)- the data proves this fact also Planet velocity definition provides a powerful proof against Newton theory of the sun gravity-No Planet Motion Depends On Its Mass- Newton is wrong- the velocity Definition Doesn't Refer To Planet Mass- Also planet velocity definition provides a direct strong proof for the energy reflection in the solar system- also – the velocity definition explains the complex machine behind the planet motion which refutes again the naïve idea of Newton about this motion- The planet velocity definition shows the general design of the solar system where all planets data is defined based on its velocity- means- the planet velocity is defined at first (after the orbit definition) and all other data is defined based on this velocity as we have seen the planet diameter is defined by the rate (v1/v2) by my planet diameter equation and planet orbital distance is defined by the rate (v1/v2)^2 and planet orbital period is defined by the rate (v1/v2)^3- shortly- the motion is the planet life

SHORTLY I refute the solar system classical description and I wanted to put a piece of strong proof in the first pages of my paper to show that the refutation doesn't depend on ideas or logical analysis- but the refutation depends on the contradiction between the physics theories and the planets creation & motion data- If the contradiction is proved that tells the description is wrong because the planets data can NOT be wrong Let's start our discussion How is planet velocity defined? Kelper stated, planet orbit defines its velocity, this rule is proved by the equation (v1/v2)^2=(d2/d1) where (d= planet orbital distance) and (v= planet velocity) BUT How Is The Planet Velocity Defined? And By What Rules? Planet velocity is defined by Three Rules let's see them in following (i) First Rule v1v2 = constant= 322 (my 5th equation)

47.4 km/s (Mercury velocity) x 6.8 km/s (Mercury velocity) =322 35 km/s (Venus velocity) x 4.7 km/s (Pluto velocity) x 2 =322 29.8 km/s (The Earth velocity) x 5.4 km/s (Neptune velocity) x 2 =322 24.1 km/s (Mars velocity) x 13.1 km/s (Jupiter velocity) =322 (Max error 2%) The rule (v1v2=322) tells the velocities are defined in pairs and not individually, each planet velocity has its own complementary- the rule tells the velocities are reflected on one another- the reflection of energy and data will be studied in details in planet velocity discussion- In this rule we interest for the constant (322)- let's ask- why the constant = 322?

The constant 322 depends on the speed 1.16 million km per second because (1160000 seconds = 322 hours) - Means Mercury (47.4 km/s) moves in 6.8 hours a distance = 1.16 million km and Uranus (6.8 km/s) moves in 47.4 hours a distance = 1.16 million km Shortly -we realize that the constant 322 is produced based on the speed 1.16 million km per second- means- the planets velocities are complementary each other because they are defined as functions in this same speed 1.16 million km per second (This is similar to electron and positron are produced from Gamma ray, The two particles depend on Gamma energy in their masses) Based On This Data I concluded there's a light beam its speed 1.16 million km per second and from this light beam energy the solar system is created- and the planets velocities are defined as functions in this speed 1.16 million km per second and that causes the velocities to be complementary each other- (Please note the speed 1.16 million km per second is proved strongly by other data in my paper specially because the light created the space at first before any planet creation by that all distances in the solar system are created by the energy of this light beam and its speed 1.16 million km per second is registered in the data)

(ii) Second Rule v1v2 = 1 The velocity here uses the solar day (86400 seconds) – let's prove that-

Mercury moves per solar day = 4.095 million km Venus moves per solar day = 3.024 million km The Earth moves per solar day = 2.574 million km The Moon moves per solar day = 2.4 million km Mars moves per solar day = 2.082 million km Jupiter moves per solar day = 1.1318 million km Saturn moves per solar day = 0.838 million km Uranus moves per solar day = 0.5875 million km Neptune moves per solar day = 0.4665 million km Pluto moves per solar day = 0.406 million km AND 0.406 (Pluto velocity) x 2.4 (the moon velocity) = 1 (error 2.5%) 0.4665 (Neptune velocity) x 2.082 (Mars velocity) = 1 (error 2.5%) 0.5875 (Uranus velocity) x 3.024 (Venus velocity)/1.772 = 1 (error 2.5%) 0.838 (Saturn velocity) x 1.1318 (Jupiter velocity) = 1 (error 5%) (1.772 = π^1/2) The second rule tells very similar meaning (v1v2= constant= 1) The data uses the velocities per solar day for that the constant is changed from 322 into 1 but the rule is the same- (v1v2= Constant) I want to say- the rule (v1v2 = Constant) tells a clear idea that (The Velocities Are Reflected On Each Other) this conclusion is simple one (A x 1/A= constant=1) The rule proves the energy is reflected in the solar system and this reflection has effect on the planets data and for that the planets velocities are defined by this energy reflection and the velocities are produced complementary each other as a result. Notice The second rule causes confusion because the complementary player is changed- for example Pluto is complementary with Venus (in the first rule 35 x 4.7 x 2 = 322) but Pluto is complementary with the Earth moon in the second rule (0.406 x 2.4 = 1) that tells the players are changed which is illogical idea- how can we solve this problem? The third rule solves it – let's see this rule in following (iii) Third Rule v1/v2 = 0.8 (based on the planets order) 47.4 km/s (Mercury velocity) x 0.8 = 38 (35 km/s = Venus velocity error 7.25%) 35 km/s (Venus velocity) x 0.8 = 27.78 (The moon velocity) 29.8 km/s (The Earth velocity) x 0.8 = 24.1 (Mars velocity) (error 1%) 24.1 km/s (Mars velocity) x 0.8 = 2 x 9.7 (Saturn velocity) 13.1 km/s (Jupiter velocity) x 0.8 = 2 x 5.4 (Neptune velocity) (error 3%) 6.8 km/s (Uranus velocity) x 0.8 = 5.4 (Neptune velocity) 5.4 km/s (Neptune velocity) x 0.8 = 4.3 (Pluto velocity 4.7 the error 7.25%) Please note The error 7.25 is found by the rate 1.0725 – that means 47.4 km/s (Mercury velocity) x 0.8 = 38 = 1.0725 x 35 km/s (Venus velocity) 5.4 km/s (Neptune velocity) x 0.8 = 4.3= 4.7 km/s (Pluto velocity) / 1.0725 29.8 km/s (Earth velocity) = 27.78 km/s (The moon velocity) x 1.0725 We know the rate 1.0725 is found by Lorentz length contraction effect- and we know this rate has effect on around 40% of all planets data – that's why we see this rate has effect on the planets velocities definition-

Let's remember the question- In the rule (v1v2=322) we found that Pluto is complementary with Venus because 4.7 km/s (Pluto velocity) x 35 km/s (Venus velocity) x 2 = 322 But in the rule (v1v2 =1) we found Pluto is complementary with the moon because 0.406 mkm (Pluto Velocity Daily) x 2.4 mkm (The Moon Velocity Daily) = 1 The question asked – if the planets velocities are defined in pairs complementary each other and not individually how can the players be changed? The answer tells – the planets velocities are rated by (0.8) based on the planets order means – the moon velocity daily 2.4 mkm = Venus velocity daily 3.024 mkm x 0.8 The rate (0.8) defines all planets velocities depend on each other by order-

Now let's see Planet velocity final definition – because- the definition uses three planets velocities together and not only two – let's put that clearly in following- (iv) The Planet Velocity Final Definition (A) 47.4 km/s (Mercury velocity) x 0.8 = 38 km/s (Venus velocity 35 km/s) Venus moves per solar day 3.024 million km -But 1/3.024 = 0.3307 million km = Uranus moves per solar day 0.5875 million km /1.77 (note 1.77 = π^1/2) and (38 = 35 x 1.0725) For that 47.4 km/s (Mercury velocity) x 6.8 km/s (Uranus velocity) = 322 (B) 35 km/s (Venus velocity) x 0.8 = 27.78 km/s (The Moon velocity) The moon moves per solar day 2.4 million km -But 1/2.4 = 0.406 million km = Pluto moves per solar day 0.406 million km For that 35 km/s (Venus velocity) x 4.7 km/s (Pluto velocity) x 2 = 322 (C) 29.8 km/s (The Earth velocity) x 0.8 = 24.1 km/s (Mars velocity) Mars moves per solar day 2.082 million km -But 1/2.082 = 0.4665 million km = Neptune moves per solar day 0.4665 million km For that 29.8 km/s (The Earth velocity) x 5.4 km/s (Neptune velocity) x 2 = 322 (D) 13.1 km/s (Jupiter velocity) x 0.8= 2 x 5.24km/s (Neptune velocity 5.4 km/s error 3%) Neptune moves per solar day 0.4665 million km - But 1/0.4665 = 2.082 million km = Mars moves per solar day 2.082 million km For that 13.1 km/s (Jupiter velocity) x 24.1 km/s (Mars velocity) = 322 Shortly Three planets velocities are defined in each equation- that tells the planet velocity definition is a process more complex than the simple equation (v1v2= constant) Notice The 9 planets velocities total is 176 km/s – if we add the Earth moon velocity (29.8 km/s) the total will be 205.8 km/s The planets velocities are complementary also for this velocity 205.8 km/s – let's see 205.8 km/s = Mercury velocity (47.4 km/s) x Pluto velocity (4.7 km/s) / 1.0725 205.8 km/s = Venus velocity (35 km/s) x Neptune velocity (5.4 km/s) x 1.0725 205.8 km/s = Earth velocity (29.8 km/s) x Uranus velocity (6.8 km/s) 205.8 km/s = Jupiter velocity (13.1 km/s) x Neptune velocity (5.4 km/s) x 3 Mercury velocity = 2 Mars velocity by that Pluto will be used for Mars also Max error (3%) Please Note- Saturn is exceptional because 205.8 km/s = 9.7 km/s (Saturn velocity) x 21.4 Where 21.4 hours = 2 x 10.7 hours (Saturn rotation period) Means- the distance is passed by all planets motions in one hour equal the distance is passed by Saturn in 2 rotation periods (21.4 hours) that tells more analysis is required for Saturn velocity- as we should do later. (v) A Question (Why Is The Rate (0.8) Used To Define Each Planet Velocity Based On Its neighbor?) Kepler stated (Planet orbit defines its velocity) and My planet orbital distance equation proves each planet orbit is defined based on its neighbor – means- my equation uses only 2 neighbor planets orbital distances Here also-Planet velocity is defined based on its neighbor – means- this connection enabled Kepler to conclude his statement (Planet orbit defines its velocity)

But Why The Rate (0.8)?? The rate (0.8) is found by the energy reflection effect on Planets velocities definition, for that we need to analyze the energy reflection process deeply to see how the planet velocity is defined by it - The energy reflection process is discussed deeply in the first hypothesis explanation- let's start its discussion in following…

II- The Hypothesis Explanation In Details Let's remember the paper first hypothesis The solar system is one energy moves in space and reflects 3 times - the points of the reflection are the planets- as a result- the planets are created depending on each other by this energy reflection.

In following we discuss the energy reflection process in details because the planet velocity definition proves the planets data is reflected on each other and we here try to see as deep as possible how this reflection process is done – the discussion is divided into 5 items which are Item No. 1 The Energy Reflection Definition Item No. 2 The Energy Reflection Proves Item No. 3 The Energy Reflection Result Item No. 4 The Energy Reflection Objective Item No. 5 Saturn Creation Depends On Uranus And The Earth Let's start our discussion in following Item No. 1 The Energy Reflection Definition Here we define the reflection of energy – let's do that in following The solar system is one energy- this energy moves through the space- we can imagine this energy as a light beam or electromagnetic wave- and- the data tells this energy is reflected- let's suppose this energy is reflected from the point (A) to the point (B)- now- these points (A and B) are planets in the solar system- That tells, the planet is a point in space on which the energy is reflected- it's difficult to accept such strange idea- BUT The planets data is more strong than our evaluation- we will see that- the planets data is created by the reflection of energy- this fact is proved strongly and doubtless- For that I analyze the reflection of energy process in details because by this process the planets are created and the energy cycle is completed- for that – we examine the reflection of energy deeply - Now- let's define the energy reflection in following (i) The energy is reflected three times in the solar system- from Pluto to Neptune (1st reflection) and from Uranus to Jupiter (2nd reflection) and from Venus to Mars (3rd reflection) The first and second reflections are unified and work together as one reflection only (later will explain why) - by that – the solar system has 2 basic reflections- the reflection in the outer planets and the reflection from Venus and Mars (ii) The reflection of energy is proved strongly because the planets data are changed as a result- let's write these changes in following v What's used as (A) before the reflection will be used as (1/A) after the reflection. v What's used as (a distance) before the reflection will be used as (a period of time) after the reflection v The velocities be squared –the rate (v1/v2) before reflection will be (v1/v2)^2 after the reflection. v The energy direction is changed by the reflection usually v The players of the rates of time are reflected also – These changes are found in all reflections of energy- that's why the proof is powerful and can't be refuted because the planets data shows the reflection process details (iii) Let's see the changes in the planets data generally

(Venus reflection) By this reflection of energy Venus orbital circumference 680 million km will be used as Mars orbital period 687 days and it defines Jupiter orbital period (4331 days = 2π x 687 days) and also Saturn orbital period (10747 days = 4π x 687 days x (1/0.8)) where Uranus orbital inclination (0.8 degrees) creates effect on Saturn data AND Venus Orbital Period 224.7 days be used as 227.9 million km (Mars orbital distance) AND Also the reflection defines the planets diameters by that Venus circumference 38025 km = Mars Circumference 21346.6 km x 1.772 (π=3.14159= 1.772^2) (more data about this reflection is discussed later) (The Outer Planets Reflection) The reflection is done by Jupiter to Uranus, by that, Jupiter orbital circumference 4900 million km will be used as Uranus orbital period 30589 days where (30589 days = 4900 days x 2π and Neptune orbital period 59800 days = 4900 days x 4π and Pluto orbital period 90560 days = 4900 days x 6π Notice- the reflection in the outer planets depends basically on Saturn and it's more complex than this simple data but I put similar data for comparison and later we will discuss the details ALSO The energy reflection at Venus passes above the Earth to Mars- where the Earth moon suffers from the length contraction effect and its motion distance daily is 2.4 mkm = 2.574 mkm (The Earth motion distance daily) / 1.0725 Similar to that The energy reflection at Jupiter passes above Saturn to Uranus – Where Saturn suffers from the length contraction effect because 1433 million km (Saturn orbital distance) x 1.0725 = 2 x 778.6 million km (Jupiter orbital distance) - And- the Earth moon daily displacement is 88000 km and during 10747 days the total be 940 million km=The Earth orbital circumference (where 10747 days = Saturn orbital period) The previous data shows the reflection energy effect generally- it's important because it compares the data in two different groups and proves the data behaviors are similar- that proves these behaviors are caused by the same one cause- But we will analyze each reflection in more details to see how each data is created Item No. 2 The Energy Reflection Proves (a) Venus reflection of energy is discussed in item no. (4), But - Here We Analyze The Energy Reflections In The Outer Planets- There are two reflections in the outer planets (from Neptune to Saturn) and (from Uranus to Jupiter)- let's explain the energy trajectory The energy is sent firstly from Pluto to Neptune and then The energy is reflected from Neptune to Saturn–means- it's one reflection is started by Pluto and finished by Saturn- later the energy is reflected one more time from Uranus to Jupiter- but we have to ask- if the energy was in Saturn orbit why this energy is returned again to Uranus? The reason is–Saturn is created as a result for an interaction between Uranus and the Earth- means- Uranus is Saturn Father- and the energy is got by Saturn sent automatically to Uranus and Uranus reflects this energy to Jupiter- we will discuss the process in details later. AND I put Saturn and Uranus relationship analysis in point No. (5) to prove that Saturn is Created by Uranus effect- (b) Also there's story I have to summarize before the data discussion- Pluto energy is reflected to Neptune – this is the first reflection- means- Neptune should send this same energy to Uranus and then to Saturn and the other planets-BUT – Neptune didn't send the energy to Uranus but kept the energy in Neptune orbit – Uranus could not release the energy from Neptune orbit- (CONT) Gerges Francis Tawdrous +201022532292 Physics Department- Physics & Mathematics Faculty Peoples' Friendship university of Russia – Moscow E-mail mrwaheid1@yahoo.com gergesgerges@yandex.ru ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1041-7147 Tumblr https://www.tumblr.com/blog/itsgerges Livejournal https://gerges2022.livejournal.com/profile Pocket https://getpocket.com/@646g8dZ0p3aX5Ad1bsTr4d9THjA5p6a5b2fX99zd54g221E4bs76eBdtf6aJw5d0?src=navbar

box https://app.box.com/s/47fwd0gshir636xt0i3wpso8lvvl8vnv Academia https://rudn.academia.edu/GergesTawadrous publications http://vixra.org/author/gerges_francis_tawdrous Slideshare https://www.slideshare.net/Gergesfrancis

[bpod-bpod]

Trust Your Eyes

"Can’t see the wood for the trees". It isn’t just an old English proverb, it’s also a problem scientists grapple with when imaging whole organs during animal model experiments. They want to see the fine details (the trees) but also capture the entire organ (the wood). Researchers now present an affordable, rapid and high-resolution approach to image whole organs in 3D called TRUST (Translational Rapid Ultraviolet-excited Sectioning Tomography). Using an inexpensive ultraviolet LED light and a colour camera, TRUST imaging of sections through mouse tissue captured images of fluorescent dyes bound to specific molecules and autofluorescence generated by unstained tissue. The result? Detailed 3D images of whole mouse organs, such as the brain and heart, as well as tissue networks, such as blood vessels of the brain (pictured) and nerves. Entire mouse embryos were also imaged, revealing how TRUST can help investigate health and disease, as well as development.

Written by Lux Fatimathas

Video from work by Wentao Yu and colleagues

Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Video originally published with a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

Published in eLife, November 2022

You can also follow BPoD on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook

[nuadox]

AI accelerates retinal imaging by a factor of 100 compared to manual approach

- By Nuadox Crew -

Researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have enhanced a cell imaging technique used to study retinal diseases like age-related macular degeneration (AMD) by applying artificial intelligence.

Video: "AI makes retinal imaging (almost) a snap" by National Eye Institute, YouTube.

Researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have enhanced a cell imaging technique used to study retinal diseases like age-related macular degeneration (AMD) by applying artificial intelligence. 

They combined adaptive optics (AO) with optical coherence tomography (OCT) to achieve high-resolution images of retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) cells.

However, processing these images was time-consuming due to speckle interference. To address this, they developed a deep learning algorithm called parallel discriminator generative adversarial network (P-GAN), which significantly improved image processing speed and contrast (roughly by a factor of 100 compared to manual methods).

This advancement not only aids in understanding retinal diseases but also enhances routine clinical imaging using AO-OCT.

--

Source: National Institutes of Health

Full study: Vineeta Das, Furu Zhang, Andrew Bower, et al. Revealing speckle obscured living human retinal cells with artificial intelligence assisted adaptive optics optical coherence tomography, Communications Medicine (2024). DOI: 10.1038/s43856-024-00483-1

Read Also

New AI could predict whether or not those at high risk will develop glaucoma

[wayti-blog]

"We know that the Earth’s atmosphere is constantly being hit by these primary cosmic rays, with the collisions producing a shower of secondary particles, including electrons, pions, neutrinos and muons. In fact, as many as 10,000 muons from these secondary cosmic rays rain down on each square metre of the Earth’s surface every minute. These particles have all the same properties as electrons but around 200 times the mass, which means they can travel much further through solid structures than electrons.

But what makes muons interesting as a probe is that interactions between the muons and the materials they’re passing through affect their flux, with denser objects deflecting and absorbing more muons than less-dense structures can. It is this difference in flux that is being used to image the internal structure of volcanoes in a technique known as “muography”. The term was coined back in 2007 by Hiroyuki Tanaka at the University of Tokyo and his colleagues, who provided the first demonstration that voids and cavities within the volcano could be detected with the technique (Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 263 1).

Also known as muon tomography, it uses detectors to produce a reverse density map of the object the muons have passed through. Spots where more muons hit the sensors represent less dense areas of the structure, while fewer muons highlight denser parts. Tanaka and colleagues have even tried to forecast volcanic eruptions using muography combined with an AI deep-learning convolutional neural network. In 2020 they used this technique to study one of the world’s most active volcanoes – the Sakurajima volcano in southern Japan, which has erupted 7000 times in the past decade (Sci. Rep. 10 5272)."

"Muography is very similar to radiography, according to Jacques Marteau, a particle physicist at the Institute of Physics of the 2 Infinities (IP2I) in Lyon, France. “It replaces X-rays from medical imaging with another particle, namely the muon,” he says. “Muography is basically an imaging process that scans the density of an object in exactly the same way as X-ray imaging.”"

continue reading article

[jcmicr]

Role of Alpha Fetoprotein in hepatocellular carcinoma by MuhammadWaqar Mazhar in Journal of Clinical and Medical Images, Case Reports  

Abstract

Hepatocellular carcinoma prevelance rate is higher in Pakistan due to HCV mortality rate, consumption of Alchol, and regular smoking, higher level of AFP progression normal liver cells into fatty liver cells, after inflammation it convert into HCC.In this study, we find the correlation between AFP and hepatocellular carcinoma. AFP involve in development of liver cancer, LFT’s test elevation and HCV also cause of cancer.

Keywords: Hepatocellular Carcinoma; Alpha Fetoprotein; alanine amino transferases; aspartate aminotransferases.

Introduction

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the 4th most common malignancy in worldwide and it is leading cause of cancer like disease in liver, and it exceed more than 1 million deaths per year by 2030 [1]. Acute hepatitis and acute liver failure are the most serious medical condition that require early diagnosis by release of IL-6, TNF-α and elevated alanine amino transferases, aspartate aminotransferases, alkaline phosphatase and α -Fetoprotein that progress healthy liver in to fatty liver known as steatosis and then inflammation occur in this and leads to hepatocellular carcinoma [2]. Most cases of HCC due to the virus like HCV and HBV, Diabetic and obesity, alcohol related diseases, non- alcohol related diseases, carcinogens like aflatoxins compounds [3]. HCC is the most common cancer that have high mortality rate in cancers due to mortality of HCV and NLFD. In Pakistan HCC ratio high due to prevalence and mortality rate of HCV [4]. The major treatment of HCC are chemotherapy, radiotherapy, transplantation and surgery. Because the most cases diagnose at the late stage, surgery cannot be performed and drugs are the only treatment of HCC [5]. Most patients in HCC become more drug resistance drug resistance. Drug treatment is the best choice of patients who are not edible for surgery. HCC is usually resistance to chemotherapeutic drugs. Because it hinders liver cancer treatment. In recent years targeted drugs use as medication and immune checkpoint inhibitors are introduce for treatment [6].

In the previous research evidence indicates that alpha-fetoprotein has high false-positive rate in diagnosis of early stage of HCC. The EASL clinic practices shows that AFP as a biomarker for liver transplantation and drug indicator [7]. The AFP level increased in many patients’ ad its risk for progression of HCC. AFP, currently the only biomarker available for HCC drug treatment, function as immune suppressor and promote malignancy transformation in HCC [8]. HCC is resistant to traditional chemotherapeutic agents such as doxorubicin, tetrahydrofolate, oxaliplatin, cisplatin, and gemcitabine. currently the recommended drugs include such as targeted therapeutics and immune checkpoint inhibitors [9].

AFP is a glycoprotein that secreted by endoderm embryonic tissue. The lower level of AFP in blood due to AFP is decrease in mature hepatocytes and that AFP gene expression is blocked. It is possible that AFP involved in HCC development and progression become an important factor affecting HCC diagnosis and treatment. AFP plays an important role in promoting cancer cell proliferation and, inhibition cancer cell apoptosis.

LFT’s test performed for liver injury, alanine aminotransferases, aspartate aminotransferases and alkaline phosphatase. These enzymes are commonly elevated in liver disease patients. Alkaline phosphatase and AFP play important role in the diagnosis of cancer.

Case Study

The patient name was sikandar, age 56 patient feel pain in their abdomen and sudden loss of weight. The patient has already hepatitis C infection and their PCR results were positive with high viral load. Due to serious illness it admitted in emergency ward 12, Nishter Hospital Multan. The doctors panel referred some test and kept in observations for better health condition.

The total bilirubin level was 2.05mg/dl in their blood and their normal values 0.6 - 1.2. The serum glutamate-pyruvate transaminase level is 43U/L and normal values up to 40. Aspartate amino transferases and alkaline phosphatase level were high in blood respectively 151 U/L and 493 U/l show in (Figure 1). Its indicate liver injury and cirrhosis. The AFP test indicates correlation with Hepatocellular carcinoma. The AFP level in patient was 6101ng/ml and normal values were 0.1 – 10. Higher level of AFP indicates that HCC have positive relation with AFP to proliferate cancer. The test formed by fully automated state of the Art analyzer Beckman Coulter 700 AIJ.

Figure 1: Liver function and Alpha Feto Protein test in patient.

After blood reports, doctor suggest ultarosund Computrised Tomography whole abdominal view. In view, spleen size becomes enlarged 6cm, calculi in gall bladder, heterogeneous patchy atrial enhancement of right lobe, and some nodules seen in both lobes of liver. The doctor findings the AFP correlation with HCC, splenomegaly, ascites, cholelithiasis and protosystematic collaterals.

Figure 2: Ultrasound Computrised Tomography whole abdomen.

The patient diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma at last stage, and doctor reffered to liver transplantation in india. But after 4 weeks he cannot survive.

Conclusion

Hepatitis C was the major risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in Pakistan. Smoking and alcohol have big problem to influence HCC in humans. The case study show that alpha fetoprotein has correlation with HCC. Higher Alkaline phosphatase and serum Bilirubin level enhance the liver carcinoma. AFP play role in cell proliferation, cancer cell differentiation and cell cycle arrest.

For more details : https://jcmimagescasereports.org/author-guidelines/ 

[atharvareports]

Optical Coherence Tomography Market Forecast 2024 to 2032

Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) is a medical imaging technique that uses light waves to capture cross-sectional images of biological tissues with high resolution. By analyzing the light reflections from different tissue layers, OCT provides detailed, non-invasive visualization of structures within the body, such as the eye's retina or layers of skin. This technology is widely used in ophthalmology, cardiology, and other medical specialties for diagnosis, monitoring, and research purposes.

Optical Coherence Tomography Marketwas valued at USD 1.43 Billion in 2022 and is expected to register a CAGR of 12% by 2032.

Key factors in the optical coherence tomography (OCT) market include its high-resolution imaging capabilities, non-invasive nature, and wide range of medical applications. The increasing demand for accurate and early disease detection, the advancements in imaging technology, and the need for precise visualization in fields like ophthalmology, cardiology, and dermatology drive the adoption of OCT.

Get A Free Sample Copy

[ijcimr]

Calvarial Tuberculosis by Eleni Ischaki in International Journal of Clinical Images and Medical Reviews 

A 19-year-old boy presented with status epilepticus. Computed tomography of the brain showed a big, multilobular mass, with peripheral oedema in the frontal lobe which was enhanced peripherally after intravenous administration of a contrast agent. The mass penetrated the frontal bone and extended subcutaneously. He immediately underwent right decompression craniectomy. An empyema was found and was drained. Microscopic examination of brain, dura mater and bone tissue specimens revealed a necrotizing granulomatous inflammation. Tissue cultures were positive for Mycobacterium tuberculosis. The patient received a 4-regimen antitubercular treatment combined with dexamethasone due to central nervous system penetration of the disease with complete response in the follow-up.

For more details: https://ijcimr.org/editorial-board/ 

[materialsscienceandengineering]

Scientists simulate magnetization reversal of Nd-Fe-B magnets using large-scale finite element models

NIMS has succeeded in simulating the magnetization reversal of Nd-Fe-B magnets using large-scale finite element models constructed based on tomographic data obtained by electron microscopy. Such simulations have shed light on microstructural features that hinder the coercivity, which quantifies a magnet's resistance to demagnetization in opposing magnetic fields. New tomography-based models are expected to guide toward the development of sustainable permanent magnets with ultimate performance. Green power generation, electric transportation, and other high-tech industries rely heavily on high-performance permanent magnets, among which the Nd-Fe-B magnets are the strongest and most in demand. The coercivity of industrial Nd-Fe-B magnets is far below its physical limit up to now. To resolve this issue, micromagnetic simulations on realistic models of the magnets can be employed.

Read more.

[whats-in-a-sentence]

Plant mitochondria are usually spherical or rodlike and range from 0.5 to 1.0 μm in length (Figure 12.5). (...) The number and sizes of mitochondria in a cell can vary dynamically due to mitochondrial division and fusion (see Figure 12.5C) while keeping up with cell division. (...) The ultrastructural features of plant mitochondria are similar to those of mitochondria in other organisms (see Figure 12.5A and B).

"Plant Physiology and Development" int'l 6e - Taiz, L., Zeiger, E., Møller, I.M., Murphy, A.

[itsgerges]

Best Regards The Gravitational Waves Reflection Analysis https://app.box.com/s/p2cudp9iwgfmdw7sz5v98euyajvfd960 or https://app.box.com/s/w6s79e9ulsbjh3i2ng9hpcm98pmzsone or https://www.tumblr.com/itsgerges/764773321876340736/the-gravitational-waves-reflection-analysispdf?source=share or https://gerges2022.livejournal.com/240598.html

Basic Critic Against The Physics Book It's the main problem I found in the solar system Geometry- the Physicist sees something but the designer sees another thing– these are two different visions for the same solar system- that answers (Why Are So Many Theories In The Physics Book Just Imaginary Ideas And Not Facts?)– let's discuss this problem The Physicist Vision The physicist supposes that there's (a unit of building)- by that- the physicist sees the mass (for example) as wall and this wall is consisted of bricks (small similar units) and for that the physicist searched for this (unit) because it's the (unit) by which the wall is building (the mass is building)– this is the physicist thinking direction- he believed there's a small unit by which the great building is built For that the physicist searched and found the particle and then the particle is divided into Molecules then the Molecule is divided into atoms and the atom is divided into nucleus and electron moves around and the nucleus is divided into proton and Neutron- and the proton is divided into quarks …etc The physicist searches for the building unit- the unit by which the building is built – or the unit by which the mass is built – for that the physicist divides (any thing) to see its contents till reach to the unit which can be used as the building unit. The Designer Vision The designer aims to create integration- as the marriage – male and female- the relationship will cause to give birth for a child INTEGRATION this is the word inside the designer Mind No building unit- the marriage answers- because in marriage both (male and female) are required and no one of them better than the other – both work together and give equal effects on the same one process and give together one result- I explain the idea by the marriage because it's easy to understand- I want to put the word (Integration) as the basic concept in the designer mind And I want to explain how the physicist causes fatal error for the research method While the physicist divides the elements one after one (from matter to particle to molecule to atom to proton to quarks …etc) this division from out into inner till reach to very small unit which he considered the building unit – that causes to destroy the geometrical design of the integration process Let's return to the marriage- the marriage requires two players (male and female)- they have different bodies and the process give birth for children- Suppose we remove one player what would happen? (where can we find a woman pregnant by herself?) I want to say- the division from (matter to particle to molecule to atom to proton to quarks …etc) destroys the general geometrical design which uses the integration process- let's give other examples Example No. (1) Einstein told us (He can't find slightest meaning for the word SPACE) by that he can't define (what's the space) and also he found the space has no mechanical features because no definition causes these features – this is the physicist vision - Let's see the designer vision Planet moves and its motion produces energy (1/2 mv^2) and where's the energy? the planet can't store its motion energy inside its body because this energy would raise the planet temperature and no planet temperature is raised by its motion- so- where's the planet motion energy? logically we suppose that- the energy is stored in the space in waves form(CONT) Gerges Francis Tawdrous +201022532292 Physics Department- Physics & Mathematics Faculty Peoples' Friendship university of Russia – Moscow Curriculum Vitae https://www.academia.edu/s/b88b0ecb7c E-mail mrwaheid1@yahoo.com gergesgerges@yandex.ru ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1041-7147 Facebook https://www.facebook.com/gergis.tawadrous VK https://vk.com/id696655587 Tumblr https://www.tumblr.com/blog/itsgerges Livejournal https://gerges2022.livejournal.com/profile Pocket https://getpocket.com/@646g8dZ0p3aX5Ad1bsTr4d9THjA5p6a5b2fX99zd54g221E4bs76eBdtf6aJw5d0?src=navbar

box https://app.box.com/s/47fwd0gshir636xt0i3wpso8lvvl8vnv Academia https://rudn.academia.edu/GergesTawadrous publications http://vixra.org/author/gerges_francis_tawdrous Slideshare https://www.slideshare.net/Gergesfrancis

[mripetctnerd]

CT Scan vs MRI (What's The Difference?)

These two medical imaging systems look virtually identical and the images show clear images of the anatomy. So what’s the difference between and MRI and CT scan?

Table of Contents

MRI vs CT Scan: What’s The Difference?

Are MRI and CT Scans the Same?

What’s The Difference Between MRI and CT Scans?

CT Scan vs MRI Scan Procedure

How To Distinguish Between an MRI Scan Machine and CT Scanner?

CT vs MRI: Advantages and Disadvantages

MRI vs CT: Which is Better?

Conclusion

MRI and CT scans both provide a non-invasive procedure to acquire high resolution images of the anatomy. These advanced diagnostic imaging systems provide a pain-free procedure to aid in the diagnosis of medical conditions. Learn more below.

Are MRI and CT Scans the Same?

In short, an MRI scan is not the same as a CT scan. MRI and CT systems share many similarities and that’s why it can be confusing identifying one imaging system from the other.

An MRI scan machine utilizes a large superconductive magnet and RF wave pulses to produce a reconstructed image of the anatomy. CT scan machines work by utilizing an X-ray beam revolving about the axial plane to produce image slices. Reconstruction computers then splice the axial images to create a 3D rendering. MRI and CT systems operate using entirely separate systems, but that is not to say that they don’t share some notable characteristics.

Before identifying some of the key differences of an MRI vs CT scan, let’s identify some of the key characteristics of each imaging system.

What Is An MRI Scan?

Magnetic Resonance Imaging, often referred to as an MRI scan, provides high definition images of the soft tissue and bones. It is a pain-free, non-invasive procedure and utilizes non-ionizing radiation. An MRI scan produces images by utilizing a large superconductive magnet to align the molecules in the patients body (Magnetic). The RF subsystem provides optimized pulse sequences to flip the molecules in the anatomy (Resonance). Receivers within the MRI detect the movement of the molecules. Images are sent to high-speed reconstruction computers for processing (Imaging). Scan data is reconstructed and sent to a Radiologist for viewing. MRI comes with many advantages but also carries many safety limitations. Below we review some of those key limitations and how they can affect the patient experience.

What Is A CT scan?

Computed Tomography Imaging, often referred to as CT scans, provide high definition images of the anatomy through a quick, pain-free, non-invasive procedure by utilizing ionizing radiation. A CT scan produces images by utilizing a revolving x-ray tube to produce sequential axial images. High speed reconstruction computers receive scan data via fiber optic connections. Concurrently, advanced reconstruction algorithms reformat the individual slices into 2D images and 3D models for easy viewing.

What Are The Differences Between CT Scanners And MRI Scanners?

Full article available at https://www.medicalimagingsource.com/mri-vs-ct-scan

Video available at https://youtu.be/2zvtY_K5Lf8

[nuadox]

Proof of concept: AI model successfully identifies 90% of cases of lymphatic cancer

- By Nuadox Crew -

Researchers at Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden have made significant strides in the field of medical image analysis using artificial intelligence, particularly in the context of detecting lymph node cancer, or lymphoma.

Led by Associate Professor Ida Häggström, they've developed a sophisticated computer model named Lars (Lymphoma Artificial Reader System) that employs deep learning techniques to examine positron emission tomography (PET) images. This model has demonstrated an impressive accuracy rate of 90% in identifying signs of lymphoma, marking a substantial advancement in AI-assisted diagnosis.

Their groundbreaking study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, represents one of the largest endeavors in this domain, incorporating over 17,000 images sourced from more than 5,000 lymphoma patients. Through meticulous supervised training, where the AI system is exposed to labeled images and corresponding diagnoses, Lars has been trained to discern intricate patterns and features indicative of lymph node cancer. This process allows the model to continuously refine its diagnostic capabilities, gradually improving its accuracy over time.

The potential implications of this research extend far beyond lymphoma diagnosis alone. AI-assisted image analysis holds promise for various medical conditions, ranging from cardiovascular disease to osteoporosis.

By leveraging AI technology, radiologists can potentially streamline their workflow, receive second opinions, and prioritize patient treatment more efficiently. Moreover, this approach enhances accessibility to specialized expertise and expedites image review processes, irrespective of the patient's location or the hospital they are affiliated with.

Despite these promising developments, there are notable challenges on the horizon. Validating the efficacy and reliability of AI-driven diagnostic systems remains a crucial step before widespread clinical implementation can occur. Häggström emphasizes the necessity for extensive clinical testing to ensure the robustness and accuracy of their computer model. While the research team has made their code available for further collaboration and refinement, rigorous validation procedures are imperative to confirm the efficacy of AI-based diagnostic tools in real-world healthcare settings.

The potential implications of this research extend far beyond lymphoma diagnosis alone. AI-assisted image analysis holds promise for various medical conditions, ranging from cardiovascular disease to osteoporosis.

--

Source: Chalmers University of Technology

Full study: Ida Häggström et al, Deep learning for [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose-PET-CT classification in patients with lymphoma: a dual-centre retrospective analysis, The Lancet Digital Health (2023). DOI: 10.1016/S2589-7500(23)00203-0

Read Also

AI can help diagnose leukemia

[jcrmhscasereports]

Aspiration pneumonia due to anesthesia digestive endoscopy under COVID-19: a case report by Xin Wang in Journal of Clinical Case Reports Medical Images and Health Sciences

ABSTRACT

Background: Digestive endoscopy is an important test for early cancer screening. The most serious complication during the examination was aspiration pneumonia. However, these patients currently do not receive much attention.

Case report: A woman was brought to the Emergency Department because of fever. Chest computed tomography revealed consolidation of the lower left lung, so the patient was diagnosed with aspiration pneumonia after anesthesia digestive endoscopy. we collected Bronchoalveolar lavage (BALF) for testing of metagenomic next generation sequencing (mNGS). The result of mNGS was normal. After 7 days of medical treatment, the pneumonia subsided.

Conclusion: This case reminded us that digestive endoscopy under sedation carried a risk of aspiration pneumonia in even healthy patients. When COVID-19 prevalent, we should make a definitive diagnosis of patients with fever as soon as possible and improve etiological tests to prevent delays.

Keywords: Aspiration pneumonia, Digestive endoscopy, Case report

INTRODUCTION

Digestive endoscopy is an important test for early cancer screening. As the test is uncomfortable so more and more people choose general anesthesia. The most serious complication during the examination was aspiration pneumonia due to reflux and aspiration.

However, these patients do not currently attract much attention, especially from anesthesiologists. Here, we report a healthy nurse who had undergone digestive endoscopy, aspiration pneumonia developed during induction of general anesthesia under COVID-19.

CASE REPORT

A woman was brought to the Emergency Department of the Center Hospital of Jinan because of fever. She got aspirated and developed severe shortness and chest pain. History of anesthesia digestive endoscopy 1 day ago, accompanied by vomiting. Her past medical history was unremarkable, she denied cigarette smoking, and has no history of allergy, anaphylaxis or bronchial asthma. Upon arrival at the hospital, she was connected to the monitor and put on humidified oxygen. On examination, she was severely distressed, blood pressure of 120/60mmHg, pulse rate of 108 beats per minute, oxygen saturation of 95% at room air, and respiratory rate of 26 breaths per minute, temperature of 39 degrees. On physical examination, wet rales were heard in the lower left lung. Blood gas analysis showed pH 7.45, partial pressure of carbon- dioxide 36.00 mmHg and partial pressure of oxygen 71.00 mmHg with 2 L/min oxygen via nasal cannula. The peripheral white blood cell count (9940/μL) and C-reactive protein level (78.5mg/h) were slightly high. The results of blood coagulation function test, biochemistry tests, myocardial enzymes, urinalysis and stool analysis were normal. Chest computed tomography revealed consolidation of the lower left lung. (Fig. 1)

Under COVID-19, in order to rule out the atypical pathogen infection and assist the patient in expulsion of inhaled substances, we performed tracheoscopy. Flexible bronchoscope showed injured and edematous surfaces of the large airways. Bronchoalveolar lavage was performed from the posterior segmental bronchus of the upper lower of her left lung. A cell count of the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) revealed57.5% macrophages, 28.0% neutrophils, 11.0% lymphocytes, and 3.5% eosinophils. The total BALF cell count was 4.2 × 106/mL. No bacteria or fungus was isolated from cultures of BALF. we collected BALF for testing of metagenomic next generation sequencing (mNGS). The result of mNGS was normal.

During hospitalization, the patient received piperacillin/ tazobactam to prevent bacterial pneumonia，hormonal anti-inflammatory and bronchodilators to improve the bronchospasm or wheezing.

After 7 days of medical treatment, the pneumonia subsided, blood, sputum cultures revealed negative findings. and she was discharged in a stable condition. The Fig. 2 was the chest CT of review.

DISCUSSION

The possibility of aspiration pneumonia was considered based on the rapid onset of the patient, the absence of previous upper respiratory infection and chest CT findings. The patient's clinical manifestations, chest CT and hematological examination results further confirmed the hypothesis. The patient's symptoms improved after early treatment with oxygen therapy, anti-infection and hormone anti-inflammatory therapy, which was also consistent with previous research results (1).

Chest CT of aspiration pneumonia often shows multifocal consolidation or patchy ground-glass opacity (2). Because the patient was in left decubitus at the time of digestive endoscopy, so gastric contents flowed back into the left side, then large exudate shadows can be seen in the lower lobe of the left lung. We all know, Aspiration of large amounts of gastric acid will result in the induction of a chemical injury to the airways and lung parenchyma. Aspiration is recognized as an independent risk factor for the subsequent development of pneumonia or acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ALI/ARDS). (3)

Our patient developed dyspnea and hypoxemia. In order to prevent further exacerbation of lung injury, we treated with hydrocortisone. The other study suggested that, in bronchi-aspiration, Steroids are not proven to improve outcome or reduce mortality (4). After hormone therapy, the patient's symptoms of dyspnea and hypoxemia were significantly improved. There were any adverse reactions. However, it remains to be discussed whether hormones can be used as a routine treatment for aspiration pneumonia.

Conflict of interest statement

All authors have read and approve the final manuscript.

Author contribution statement    

Wang Jing wrote the manuscript, conceived and designed the report; Cui JY collected and prepared the images; Wang X reviewed and confirmed the final version of the manuscript.

Ethics statement

The authors declare that appropriate written informed consent was obtained for the publication of this manuscript and accompanying images.

For more information: https://jmedcasereportsimages.org/about-us/

For more submission : https://jmedcasereportsimages.org/