Doctors Prescribe iPods. What About the Pocket PC?

[Darius Wey]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.com.com/Doctors+order+iPods+for+storage/2100-1041_3-5566145.html' target='_blank'>http://news.com.com/Doctors+order+i..._3-5566145.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"While Apple is riding high on the sales of the iPod, the iconic music player is morphing into a business tool for radiologists at the University of California, Los Angeles."</i><br /><br />Radiologists at the University of California have found a different use for the booming iPod. At the tap of a button, physicians can gain access to a bundle of high-resolution photos, and show it off to their colleagues. But what makes this any different to the Pocket PC? Sure - the iPod wins in storage, but grab a Pocket PC and stick in a high-capacity memory card, and you're on your way to replicating the fantastic ride that these radiologists are experiencing. Apart from that, you can perform a host of other functions on the Pocket PC as well. So while the CNET news article covers a somewhat unique use of the iPod, it's fair to say that Pocket PCs definitely can fulfil the same purpose. In fact, its use in the medical industry is growing as we speak. We've covered a countless number of news stories in the past where physicians have used Bluetooth and Wi-Fi for the transfer of patient results from the bedside to the server. And apart from that, they make great digital reference tools. It is scenarios like this that leave little wonder why "pocket-able" solutions are becoming increasingly popular, not just in the medical industry, but elsewhere as well. So what is the purpose of this news post? I'm not sure anymore - I originally pointed out the use of an iPod, and then compared it to the Pocket PC, and then sort of unified the two in the end to point out that electronic mobile units have a place in this world. So feel free to turn the discussion of this thread into whatever you want - iPod vs. Pocket PC? Using mobile devices in the medical industry? Spill your thoughts out, but just don't get too off-topic. ;-)

[surur]

Maybe when some-one puts a HDD in a pocketpc it will be able to compete. Do you have any idea how huge these pictures are? CF just cant beat HDD for price/capacity.

Surur

[rzanology]

That is just dumb. Why the hell would you want to show high re spics on a 2 inch screen? This goes back to my original point that mr. jobs is an idiot. After he refuses to product a pda he turns around and throws contacts and pics on a mp3….hmmmm. It doesn’t stop at jobs….the whole mac industry are sheep. They all scream “ppc are useless, that’s what palms are for” but yet still they screaming for more features on a…..mp3 player???? AAAAANY WHOOOO….ipod vs. ppc isn’t a fair match up….the main and only feature of the ipod is but one of a loooong list of features on a ppc.

[Phronetix]

But what makes this any different to the Pocket PC? Sure - the iPod wins in storage, but grab a Pocket PC and stick in a high-capacity memory card, and you're on your way to replicating the fantastic ride that these radiologists are experiencing. Apart from that, you can perform a host of other functions on the Pocket PC as well. So while the CNET news article covers a somewhat unique use of the iPod, it's fair to say that Pocket PCs definitely can fulfil the same purpose.

I think this is a stretch as a use for the small display iPod Photo, but also for the not much larger PPC as well. Which is why radiologists use those huge displays for reading electronic films. The iPod's hard drive is the key feature that makes the device better suited; besides the sandisk 40 gig sd card is a ways off. The scroll wheel is a beautiful thing, though, and searching for films on the device would be easier.

Gotta hand it to those docs for convincing their departments they need iPod Photo's to do their work, though. :way to go:

[Deus]

I am a lover of both devices and while tha Pocket PC can do SO much more and is so much more flexible, I can see why they might use the iPod Photo. I have many many pictures on my iPod Photo and I can find a picture on it 100 times faster than on a Pocket PC. The scroll wheel is the ultimate interface for fast searching, plus no need to remove a stylus. The whole device can be operated with one hand. Now the images are NO where near the quality that you would get on a PPC. Size alone makes a difference. But they may not need this. Sometimes Speed is the factor. ;)

[CME2C]

The IPOD may be a better device for radiologists. The high resolution DICOM images used in radiology take up a lot of space. It would be good for carrying large presentations with them to transfer to a PC/MAC. Also, radiologists aren't real doctors and wouldn't need patient management programs, or drug references etc. There are just a couple of radiology texts available in PDA format and many don't find them useful. Obvously anyone can get use out of the easier to use PIM functions on a Pocket PC, and the larger screen and other programs.

Just kidding about the real doctors part.

[farnold]

Spill your thoughts out, but just don't get too off-topic. ;-)
Are you talking about internal or external use :mrgreen:

[dedman]

I've always wondered why we don't get a PPC with a hard drive. To me it would then become the killer ap, able to store photos, songs, movies, games, and everything else.

Yeah you can by memory, but a PPC with a harddrive seems to be the answer.

[Jonathon Watkins]

I've always wondered why we don't get a PPC with a hard drive. To me it would then become the killer ap, able to store photos, songs, movies, games, and everything else.

Yeah you can by memory, but a PPC with a harddrive seems to be the answer.

Totally agree. A PPC with a decent hard drive would be a real crossover device. What couldn't you do with it? It would be good if they put some dedicated MP3 playback button on it though. Someone needs to think out of the box and make this happen. Forget about those 6Gb drives as well.

We want a PPC with one of the new 60Gb drives! :rock on dude!:

OK, it will be larger than a traditional PPC, but should still be smaller than an iPod. Just licence the input wheel from Apple and put it on the back of the device. Now THAT would be a gadget with mass appeal.

[Charles Pickrell]

The iPod Photo comes with built in television connectivity. I couldn't imagine medical staff using the 2" screen alone.

[Deslock]

Why they'd want to look at high resolution files on a tiny screen is not explained in the article.

However, the article states why PPCs are unsuitable: memory cards do not have the needed capacity. Also, with the iPod's scroll wheel you can more quickly go through a large list of files and PPCs do not connect to Macs as easily.

[mhynek]

I am an x-ray tech and have been working in cardiology for the past 11 years. Over the years, I've always thought that being able to take a patient's images with you to show to colleagues and family members would be a valuable asset. However, the resolution is just too poor on these pocketable screens to be able to make a diagnosis from. Sure, you can make the argument that gross anatomy can be seen and demonstrated. Yet the detail on even a vga screen is not adequate enough for a medical diagnosis. Just think, would you want your family member's x-ray read on a ppc, knowing that hairline fractures would be missed or that the images were being shown to the doctor's partners and they were deciding what course of action to take based upon images displayed with poor image quality? Anyway, enough conjecture. The doctors in the cnet article seem to be using the screen as just a thumbnail reference to what they want displayed on their screens. In that respect, I believe that the Ipod is a great device for this. Since they are not downgrading the images and are using the pure DICOM image, there is no loss in quality. I have tried DICOM viewers for the PPC made by puntoexe as well as reViewMD and although they work, the resolution of the images they produce are degraded and only useful in gross presentations. However, in my experience, if you ask a doctor for his/her opinion on a case, he/she will not be able to give you a proper answer if they don't trust what they're looking at. And that's what the main issue with these portable viewers is, trust. If you don't trust the tool that you're using, then it is worthless. The application of the Ipod as a portable means of transporting true DICOM images is brilliant, in my book at least. Thanks for hearing me out. I don't post much, even though I've been around the boards (albeit mostly Psion '91) long before I'd heard of Dale, Jason, and Dave. I am an information junky. Thanks for giving me my daily fix.

[Craig Horlacher]

I think it's odd they're using an iPod for this. The iPod has always been one of the worst options as far as features are conserned. Creative, iRiver, and Samsung have always had hard drive based "mp3" players that are much more feature rich for about the same price. All the ipod really can do is play music. Other players have fm tuners, recording abilities (not just voice memo stuff, record direct to mp3 at different rates or as an uncompressed wave file for high quality). Some even have optical input and output as well as conventional 1/8" stereo.

Now everyone is coming out with color screen versions that view images too. Again, I think the iPod is a strange (very possibly uninformed) choice. I there are a few companies making small hard drive based devices to play back video. These have much better screens and the ablitly to view images as well. I know iRiver has a few models out and at least one has a 40GB hard drive. I think they have two models with 20GB hard drives.

My intent is not to bash the iPod. I do feel that most people who buy them are not aware of the other options that are out there. If you like the physical design of the device and/or you just love itunes then it's probably the device for you. I just feel that this is one case where they are really not looking at other options if they're using the ipod photo for medical imaging.

[Jonathon Watkins]

Thanks for hearing me out.

No problem Mhynek. Thanks for taking the time to give us the 'inside' view of this. :)

I am an information junky

Arn't we all! :wink:

[Deus]

I think it's odd they're using an iPod for this. The iPod has always been one of the worst options as far as features are conserned. Creative, iRiver, and Samsung have always had hard drive based "mp3" players that are much more feature rich for about the same price. All the ipod really can do is play music. Other players have fm tuners, recording abilities (not just voice memo stuff, record direct to mp3 at different rates or as an uncompressed wave file for high quality). Some even have optical input and output as well as conventional 1/8" stereo.

Now everyone is coming out with color screen versions that view images too. Again, I think the iPod is a strange (very possibly uninformed) choice. I there are a few companies making small hard drive based devices to play back video. These have much better screens and the ablitly to view images as well. I know iRiver has a few models out and at least one has a 40GB hard drive. I think they have two models with 20GB hard drives.

My intent is not to bash the iPod. I do feel that most people who buy them are not aware of the other options that are out there. If you like the physical design of the device and/or you just love itunes then it's probably the device for you. I just feel that this is one case where they are really not looking at other options if they're using the ipod photo for medical imaging.

Have you owned an iPod?

[Deus]

I am an x-ray tech and have been working in cardiology for the past 11 years. Over the years, I've always thought that being able to take a patient's images with you to show to colleagues and family members would be a valuable asset. However, the resolution is just too poor on these pocketable screens to be able to make a diagnosis from. Sure, you can make the argument that gross anatomy can be seen and demonstrated. Yet the detail on even a vga screen is not adequate enough for a medical diagnosis. Just think, would you want your family member's x-ray read on a ppc, knowing that hairline fractures would be missed or that the images were being shown to the doctor's partners and they were deciding what course of action to take based upon images displayed with poor image quality? Anyway, enough conjecture. The doctors in the cnet article seem to be using the screen as just a thumbnail reference to what they want displayed on their screens. In that respect, I believe that the Ipod is a great device for this. Since they are not downgrading the images and are using the pure DICOM image, there is no loss in quality. I have tried DICOM viewers for the PPC made by puntoexe as well as reViewMD and although they work, the resolution of the images they produce are degraded and only useful in gross presentations. However, in my experience, if you ask a doctor for his/her opinion on a case, he/she will not be able to give you a proper answer if they don't trust what they're looking at. And that's what the main issue with these portable viewers is, trust. If you don't trust the tool that you're using, then it is worthless. The application of the Ipod as a portable means of transporting true DICOM images is brilliant, in my book at least. Thanks for hearing me out. I don't post much, even though I've been around the boards (albeit mostly Psion '91) long before I'd heard of Dale, Jason, and Dave. I am an information junky. Thanks for giving me my daily fix.

Your fogetting that iPod Photos have a TV out. The images can be displayed on an external source for better viewing if need be.

[Macguy59]

The iPod Photo comes with built in television connectivity. I couldn't imagine medical staff using the 2" screen alone.

Bingo. At first blush I to thought a PPC more suitable until I remembered that factoid. That combined with the HD and sweet scrollwheel makes this the best solution for the time being. Not to mention size/form factor.

[surur]

Your fogetting that iPod Photos have a TV out. The images can be displayed on an external source for better viewing if need be.

I believe TV resolution is around or even lower than VGA. TV out is far from adequate for diagnosing hairline fractures and subtle graduations of density between normal and abnormal tissue. Displays for radiological use are quite specialized and expensive.

Having said that, the higher DPI devices may be quite good for viewing small areas of a larger image. I think in the end though, its about the storage the ipod provide, not the viewing ability.

Where's my pocketpc with HDD?

Surur

[yslee]

TVs have terrible resolutions. I'm not going to have any xrays diagnosed that way!

[Craig Horlacher]

I think it's odd they're using an iPod for this. The iPod has always been one of the worst options as far as features are conserned. Creative, iRiver, and Samsung have always had hard...
...and/or you just love itunes then it's probably the device for you. I just feel that this is one case where they are really not looking at other options if they're using the ipod photo for medical imaging.

Have you owned an iPod?
No, I haven't owned an iPod. I have looked at high resolution images on low resolution displays and small displays. For what they are doing, I would think they would benifit greatly from a higher resolution display like some of the new hard drive based media player devices offer. They should also give a 3.5"-4" diagonal. I can't imagine trying to look at details in large images on a display as small and low resolution of that as the ipaq photo.

[Deus]

Well, There has to be SOME reason they are using it. If it really wouldn't suffice then why are they using it ????

[alabij]

This thread is wierd. How can we be comparing an ipos with a PPC/PE. Why store images ona music box. This is just a ploy to promote the ipod a little bit further. There are many music players out there that support pictures/scroll wheels and have TV out jacks. There is really nothing that makes the ipod unique to the task. NOW! With the pocket PC, you not only have wifi/BT/GPRS/CDMA you have divisibility aka the ability to do more with one.

[Stik]

Well, There has to be SOME reason they are using it. If it really wouldn't suffice then why are they using it ????

Its a variation of the WBIC syndrome that afflicts some here.

Why? Because They Can!! :lol:

[mhynek]

Just to shed some light, the radiologists are most likely viewing their cases with a dicom viewer on a computer with a high resolution monitor. By no means did I wish to imply that they would use the onboard screen or a stardard television to display their images. Also, at most medical conferences there is a computer connected to a projector from which different doctors input their media and present their cases for discussion. By using the immense capacity of the Ipod, this would save the doctors a lot of trouble coralling cd's, and potentially misplacing one of them, while they travel to and from their conference. That's all I will add. I don't want to detract from the purpose of this thread. Just to shed some light.

[rob_ocelot]

Your fogetting that iPod Photos have a TV out. The images can be displayed on an external source for better viewing if need be.

I believe TV resolution is around or even lower than VGA. TV out is far from adequate for diagnosing hairline fractures and subtle graduations of density between normal and abnormal tissue. Displays for radiological use are quite specialized and expensive.


TV rez (640 x 480 interlaced) is terrible for viewing pictures. ALl kinds of nasty artefacts and dot crawl.

The iPod screen or even a PocketPC screen might not be useful in Radiology but they could be very useful in Radiation Oncology, where DRR's, simulator films and radiation portal films don't need to be diagnostic quality. Could be a very useful tool for Radiation Therapists too.

The one concern I have for mobiles in medical environments is security and confidentiality. I don't think the iPod has any security meaures like a password or a button sequence to unlock a device. Pocket PC's are marginally better with passwords and biometrics. The real problem is that mobile devices in these environements tend to go for short walks and never return. An iPod is almost instantly recognizable as such (it's practically iconic) and is even more likely to be a victim of a 5-finger discount.

Regards,
Rob S.

[Kevin Daly]

It looks on the face of it to be the kind of application that would be much more naturally suited to a Pocket PC, or even a Palm device (if you must).

Unfortunately I think we are running into the problem that Apple has acquired massive mindshare with the iPod, which tends to blind people to the idea that other devices exist and might be better suited to the task at hand.

[Charles Pickrell]

TVs have terrible resolutions. I'm not going to have any xrays diagnosed that way!

OMG, did anyone even bother to read the article?

Instead of using expensive DICOM workstations to visualize the radiological scans, they are using Macintoshes. The Ipod is just used as a storage device to move the images around from dept to dept. They don't do any reading on the iPod.

I think that this is an innovative solution for hospitals without a lot of $$$.

[Cameron_Talley]

I didn't RTFA, but I would just like to say that I have both devices: a 20gig, 3G iPod, and an iPaq 3955 PPC. In my view, both devices have their place.

I think the reason why a PPC is not suited to this application is because they are using the device primarily for it's hard drive--something a PPC doesn't have.

I'm not sure having a Hard drive in a PPC would work as well as the HD in the iPod. The iPod only accesses the drive when it needs to load music into the buffer--it doesn't spin all the time. I would think that a PPC would be more likely to need to access data frequently, causing faster wear and tear. Remember, these devices already get bumped around a lot--a hard drive is just another component to worry about breaking.

I don't think that Apple will turn the iPod into a PPC like device--Jobs has said from the beginning that "It's the Music, Stupid," and with the exception of the iPod Photo, that's what the iPod has been. A music player.

I'll keep both devices, thank you! :)

[Damion Chaplin]

This is an interesting thread because it parallels my recent thoughts...

I just bought one of these for my media uses:

http://www.archos.com/products/overview/gmini_400.html

Wouldn't everyone agree with me that if my iPaq came with a 20GB HD, these sort of devices wouldn't be necessary? I can see some people preferring one interface over another, but I'm just talking about hardware here... If my iPaq had the capacity of my new gmini, I certainly wouldn't have spent the extra money - my iPaq is easily capable of everything the gmini is capable of...

In other words, I think that if a PPC had a 20GB HD, these doctors wouldn't necessarily be using an MP3 player as a data dump.

Just my thoughts on the issue...

[rob_ocelot]

This is an interesting thread because it parallels my recent thoughts...

...

In other words, I think that if a PPC had a 20GB HD, these doctors wouldn't necessarily be using an MP3 player as a data dump.

Just my thoughts on the issue...

That's one of the reasons why I like my Toshiba e800. I can connect my iPod to it via USB host and have access to 40 Gig of data when I need it. If I don't need it then I'm not saddled with carrying around the extra weight of the drive. Best of both worlds, IMO. This solution isn't for everyone though: the minute you have to plug something extra into the unit *and* make sure there are the correct driver you'll pretty much alienate about 90% of the people.

Regards,
Rob S.

[Mr_Blonde]

As some one who has worked with doctors on their use of PPC's and Palm's in their practices (C-Tools 2.0 App >>> www.cancer.org/c-tools ) most of the doctors I work with would never use their PPC or Ipod to view photos . I mean isn't this what the Tablet PC was invented for? To take with you to show patients full resolution X-Ray's, write prescriptions, fill out forms etc? Or am I giving the Tablet PC product too much credit?

[TypeMRT]

Displaying images on the iPod's screen is just eye-candy for the cnet article. The real purpose of using the iPod is to store the images on a small, high-capicity portable drive. The real magic happens with Osirix. It's an open source program that scans whatever drive/folder for special file types (DICOM/PACS) generated by x-ray &amp; MRI imagers. Check out the Osirix website (http://homepage.mac.com/rossetantoine/osirix/Index2.html) for some cool screenshots &amp; 3D movies. It also ties into Apple iChat's videoconferencing ability to share the images.
Can't really beat free software and relatively low-cost hardware. But is really seems like a clever way to convince the Radiology Dept. head to buy new iPods, G5's, &amp; 30-in Cinema Displays for the lab :wink: .

[Darius Wey]

I've always wondered why we don't get a PPC with a hard drive. To me it would then become the killer ap, able to store photos, songs, movies, games, and everything else.

We're seeing more and more "mechanical" mini-HDDs surfacing into the market, so we may see HDD PPCs in the not-too-distant future. Don't worry - you're not the only one excited about such a thought. :D

[Darius Wey]

Spill your thoughts out, but just don't get too off-topic. ;-)
Are you talking about internal or external use :mrgreen:

I've just woken up, so whatever hidden meaning is behind that isn't quite clicking at me just yet. :morning:

[Darius Wey]

Instead of using expensive DICOM workstations to visualize the radiological scans, they are using Macintoshes. The Ipod is just used as a storage device to move the images around from dept to dept. They don't do any reading on the iPod.

Precisely. The iPod is there as a quick, on-the-go solution for looking at the scans momentarily, and porting it around from A to B. You'd be right in saying most of the visualising is done elsewhere. But I didn't want to delve into the minute details in my initial post since I wanted to see where the community stands on the whole iPod vs PPC debate (which has been brought up before), and what they think of the use of mobile devices in the medical industry.

[Darius Wey]

As some one who has worked with doctors on their use of PPC's and Palm's in their practices (C-Tools 2.0 App >>> www.cancer.org/c-tools ) most of the doctors I work with would never use their PPC or Ipod to view photos . I mean isn't this what the Tablet PC was invented for? To take with you to show patients full resolution X-Ray's, write prescriptions, fill out forms etc? Or am I giving the Tablet PC product too much credit?

I rarely use it for those purposes too. I like to think of my PPC as more of a reference tool out in the field, than anything else. :)

[JayM]

I agree Pocket PC's are better because of the other applications, networking and data managment you can do with them. But of course I'm a little bias. :devilboy: (see below)

[yslee]

OMG, did anyone even bother to read the article?


I did, but the other posters appear to be quoting the tv out feature as a way to get by the 2" screen on the ipod photo..

[jlp]

...I can find a picture on it 100 times faster than on a Pocket PC.

Then it means you're not well organized. With StarTap or another launcher (Conduit or Applian ones (even Dell's or Casio's), etc.) you can have one tap (even using your thumb) access to any program or document; thus with even greater speed than on an iPod; it's instantaneous.

...The scroll wheel is the ultimate interface for fast searching, plus no need to remove a stylus. The whole device can be operated with one hand.

It's all of this and even more confortable with a side scroll wheel.

...Now the images are NO where near the quality that you would get on a PPC. Size alone makes a difference. But they may not need this. Sometimes Speed is the factor. ;)

They are just toying around with these tiny pics. Doctors don't need tiny pics, but large detailed ones. I'm no doctor but I can't imagine what anybody could see that is important on a tiny pix on a tiny screen.

Whereas on a VGA PPC you can display large images fast, with much more details, with fast search, fast zooming in/out, etc. Many PPC image viewers come with desktop image utilities to crop, resize and synchronize entire albums.

With the Dpad or better: a side scroll wheel you can navigate the pix easily, fast and one handed as well.

That's a lot more practical and efficient than a tiny screen and a huge scroll wheel.

Also note that some VGA PPCs have VGA out capabilities as well.

[davea0511]

The only reason I've heard that a radiologist would ever do this is so they could take their data with them. How long does it take to download this data onto your iPOD? How difficult and awkward? It makes sense if the process is instantaneous, but otherwise I'd say thee whole concept is DOA. If I had Xrays to find out if I had a bone disease, I don't want to wait around another 30 minutes just wearing a tunic on a cold operating table while they're downloading pictures to an iPOD with bad resolution.

Seems a broadband wireless solution would be much better. If they use it to show thumbnails, wireless transfers would be instantaneous. If the server was properly configured, it could serve customized resolutions as needed.

In short I think patients will be the ones who suffer from this technology. I'm sick of waiting in doctors offices, let alone on cold operating tables. I also don't want doctors making decisions based on poor resolution devices.

[rodaniel]

Instead of using expensive DICOM workstations to visualize the radiological scans, they are using Macintoshes. The Ipod is just used as a storage device to move the images around from dept to dept... I think that this is an innovative solution for hospitals without a lot of $$$.

Several problems with this line of thinking:

- There's no HIPAA-compliant security on an iPod to safeguard my private diagnostic images and/or info that some doc is schlepping around intermingled with his latest Kanye West and Eminem tunes.

- No hospitals I know of actually use Macs since few (or no) medical or imaging apps are written for that platform. Like it or not; inferior or not; popular opinion or not - Windows-based PCs are what hospitals use.

- In order to schlep the images over, a doc has to goober up the PC with iTunes software - if the PC is even unsecured enough to allow any software to be installed at all.

- Most hospitals are now - or will soon be - offering secure web-based image-viewing so a doc can access the info from any Internet-connected PC.

Bad, bad, bad.

Rob O.