How do they get these foetus pictures

[davidhorman]

One of today's newspapers had a sort of life-cycle of a growing foetus in pictures, which included some similar to these:

How do they take these pictures? Are some models, and some aborted foetuses presented as living? I don't see how you can take those kind of pictures of foetuses inside the womb.

This last one looks more "realistic":

But how often is there a medical need to send an endoscope into the womb?

David

 

[richardm]

There was a guy back in the 70s who was famous for his foetus photographs that looked very much like these, but he did them using aborted foetuses. It's quite possible that these were produced the same way. I don't think there's very much spare room in a uterus.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Actually, it looks like it's mostly those very pictures. They seem to be used everywhere when foetus pictures are needed.

Hans

 

[Rolfe]

I read some stuff recently about companies offering high-quality ultrasound "glamour shots" to prospective parents, to put in the baby albums. They seem to use higher-frequency ultrasound or something like that, and get a very realistic picture. There were warnings no to do it, because no procedure is necessarily 100% safe, and having something like that done just for a picture without medical necessity might not be a justificble risk.

However, I don't know nearly enough about it to be able to tell whether it was that technique produced these pictures.

Rolfe.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

There was a guy back in the 70s who was famous for his foetus photographs that looked very much like these, but he did them using aborted foetuses. It's quite possible that these were produced the same way. I don't think there's very much spare room in a uterus.

Lennart Nilsson

His pictures were of living ( viable) fetus's.... And the famous, published pictures were in Life magazine in 1965...

Of course there may have been someone else who did some dead ones...

Oh, and to answer the question: " How do they get these foetus pictures? "

They use an " endoscope "..

 

[Rolfe]

These pictures do look alive to me, as far as I can tell.

And although I'd never stand between a woman and a deeply-thought-through decision on abortion, I do think it's important to let people see what the extreme "abortion on demand" advocates mean when they speak dismissively of "nothing but a ball of cells".

Rolfe.

 

[ingoa]

The name is Lennart Nilsson and the photos are made with an endoscope. For an interview with Nilsson look here

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The name is Lennart Nilsson and the photos are made with an endoscope. For an interview with Nilsson look here

Hmmm... There seems to be an echo in here...

Lennart Nilsson

His pictures were of living ( viable) fetus's.... And the famous, published pictures were in Life magazine in 1965...

Of course there may have been someone else who did some dead ones...

Oh, and to answer the question: " How do they get these foetus pictures? "

They use an " endoscope "..

 

[HopkinsMedStudent]

I've seen the new 4D ultrasounds that Rolfe speaks of, and they are absolutely amazing. True 3D resolution and great temporal resolution allows you to capture a real-time movie of the fetus in motion.

 

[Rolfe]

That's amazing! Do you know what stage of gestation these were taken at?

Rolfe.

 

[epepke]

I've seen the new 4D ultrasounds that Rolfe speaks of, and they are absolutely amazing. True 3D resolution and great temporal resolution allows you to capture a real-time movie of the fetus in motion.

That's really good.

To me, however, it looks like someone has applied the Marching Cubes algorithm to a 3-D density map (the 4-D would just be multiple maps) and done an arbitrary skin-like material mapping with Phong lighting and Gouraud shading. So, what it would actually look like if photographed would be quite different.

 

[HopkinsMedStudent]

That's really good.

To me, however, it looks like someone has applied the Marching Cubes algorithm to a 3-D density map (the 4-D would just be multiple maps) and done an arbitrary skin-like material mapping with Phong lighting and Gouraud shading. So, what it would actually look like if photographed would be quite different.

Agreed, its not a "real" image, if you consider a "real" image to be based on electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum. Ultrasound, MRI, CT are all abstractions whereby other non-visible data is abstracted into a visual model.

But the detail is quite good, MUCH better than previous 2D ultrasound, and at any rate its the best imaging method of the fetus other than using an endoscope w/ mounted camera.

 

[HopkinsMedStudent]

That's amazing! Do you know what stage of gestation these were taken at?

Rolfe.

I believe those were taken in the 25th week.

 

[epepke]

Agreed, its not a "real" image, if you consider a "real" image to be based on electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum. Ultrasound, MRI, CT are all abstractions whereby other non-visible data is abstracted into a visual model.

Excuse me for digressing, but I used to do research on this stuff. There is a fair amount of difficulty in doing the abstraction onto the physical model.

The Marching Cubes algorithm has some definite problems with respect to resolving small structures. I suppose in a family photo these might not be so important, but in the case of virtual endoscopy, such as when they inflate the colon and do a scan, the ambiguities in the algorithm could make a significant difference in the calculation, as well of course as the visual perception of the volume of polyps.

These problems are due to sampling errors in the dataset, irreducable according to the Nyquist theorem. However, the Marching Cubes approach can easily give the impression of a definite surface at a particular location whereas this is unjustifiable by the data.

There is information available in the dataset that provides a reasonable estimate of error, the gradient, but I am aware of no medical system that presents this error visually.

I would expect Marching Cubes to be used a lot, because GE holds the patent, and they also make much of the equipment. However, there are better algorithms for 3-D reconstruction, such as volume visualization. These, of course, can't defeat Nyquist, but they also don't give a false impression of a definite surface when it is unjustifiable by the data.

Yet the use of these algorithms seems slow in medical devices. I wonder why that is.

 

[HopkinsMedStudent]

If your argument about the technology is accurate, AND as relevant clinically as you suggest, then I would expect another imaging company like Siemens or Bruker to recognize this and produce their own ultrasound devices based on this technology to compete against GE directly.

 

[epepke]

If your argument about the technology is accurate, AND as relevant clinically as you suggest, then I would expect another imaging company like Siemens or Bruker to recognize this and produce their own ultrasound devices based on this technology to compete against GE directly.

That's an Ideal O' Capitalism view, but I'm a bit cynical about the whole matter, I'm afraid. The problem is getting someone to buy it. If I recall correctly, Siemens was involved in a collaboration with Mitsubishi on a PC-level volume visualization chipset. Great chipset. Didn't come to anything.

Probably, as long as the existing algorithms aren't too bad, and they aren't involved in too many lawsuits, they're just going to continue to be used. Plus there's inertia. I remember it took about ten years to get physicians to accept even pseudocolor, because physicians were used to looking like things that looked like X-rays. Back in the late-1980s, many of the devices I worked with had fairly sophisticated algorithms that served no purpose other than making an image look X-ray-like.

Maybe, ten, fifteen years down the road, it will change. But still, I take great pride in my profession, and I don't like seeing inferior techniques used, and it frustrates me to see better techniques languish in academia when they could be saving lives. Yet I guess that's part of being human.