[lugsoul]

Yes, they do. Better imaging equipment, better version control, no generational effect, the use of software to actually read the CT instead of looking at a .jpg.

Okay, Dr. - go ahead and tell us how you'd just as soon look at a .jpg on a web site as look at an actual CT.

[Dr. Frank fan]

"Imaging equipment"? You mean, the monitor? Are you saying CodeBlue doesn't have a monitor?

"Software to read the CT"? What that fancy software does is.... render the CT to your screen. Then, you look at it, which is presumably what CodeBlue did.

Now, if this were like a 200 x 120 JPG maybe you'd have a point because of loss of detail. But the scan he examined is a 640 x 480 PNG not a JPG.

It appears to have some noise but in terms of the feature level it does not look qualitatively different from the typical CT slice you'd look at on your screen. Presumably at that size the real limitations are with the resolution of CT algorithm itself, not how it's being rendered here. Tell me what imperfections you see in the reproduction that make you think CodeBlue's analysis of it will be flawed? More to the point, what is your problem with CodeBlue's analysis exactly?

(Note, I'm open to Codeblue being wrong, he's very opinionated and has taken very controversial stands before.)

Now, obviously looking at one slice is not the same thing as looking at the whole series. And here's where you get a "touche", I hadn't realized he was looking only at one slice. as CodeBlue says,

I am not saying that I do not want to see the entire CT -- I do! This is all they are providing us with; and if THIS is what they based this case on, they have made a HUGE error.

However, the point stands that it's silly to think that looking at a CT slice "on the internet" (even if it's a slightly noisy 640x480 PNG like this is) is somehow infinitely worse than looking at it after it's been imported from one machine to another... over the (private) internet at some hospital. Let's just put it this way: doctor X looking at only this slice in the "real place where the CT was taken" (or, wherever exactly you think it's best to look at CTs) does not enjoy the huge advantage over CodeBlue looking at the PNG over the (gasp) "internet" that you were implying he does.

But let's grant that he's got a noisy 640x480 PNG of the slice in question, instead of the actual CT set. What features were or could have been lost in the process of exporting this slice to PNG that, you think, could reverse the conclusions he's drawn? and/or what 3d details of the remaining CT and structure sets would invalidate his conclusions? I'm open to suggestions (and CodeBlue is too; go comment there if you've got any ideas).