I’m not a sonographer but there appear to be liver images where there should be brain images.
Eg “PONS SW
Mobile and connected cloud system which will use machine learning and image processing algorithms to optimize recognition of Brain Bleeding risk” then there are what look like two images of the liver.
Agreed. Aneurysm, probe are spelled incorrectly. There is no "neural vein". I can only assume they're referring to the superior ophthalmic vein diameter to evaluate for intracranial pressure(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12695206/), but if it's gotten to that point, it's really no better than a good clinical exam.
Even accounting for some language barrier/mistranslation, many red flags are going off on this one, I'm afraid.
Current traditional brain health diagnostic procedures, like MRI and CT, are time consuming, emit radiation, expensive and access to the equipment and the results are time-delayed (i.e. 30-70 minutes). Importantly, patients have to be transported (sometimes over long distances) and admitted to a hospital or specialized medical centre (that has the equipment and highly qualified technical and medical personnel) before they can be diagnosed with a Brain Trauma. The medical industry is beckoning a quick, reliable and less expensive brain trauma diagnostic solution.
What do you think about the developments in the field?
There are plenty of problems with MRI, but ionising radiation is not one of them.
A quick brain protocol (Siemens market “Go brain”) takes 5 minutes and gives very good image quality.
Setting up the patient and removing them from the scanner takes longer.
A standard brain protocol of about 20 minutes is better, but the 5 minute protocol is good enough.
US as UltraSound, I think you should have said somewhere this is your neologism. Yes, contextually its understood. No, for a cold-reader, its a bit hidden.
I found typos. Glitz is good, but proofreading is better.