this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
44 points (95.8% liked)

Technology

59341 readers
6370 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

> Such nanoparticles do not occur naturally in the human body and must be administered as markers

So if I’m reading this right, much like radioactive markers, these must be surgically implanted before they can capture the imaging? In other words, it’s not a direct replacement for MRI or X-ray imaging technologies, though it could potentially be safer for long term care patients that need frequent imaging.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Not implanted, just injected into a vessel with a needle or catheter. Any time you introduce something like this into the blood though, there are consequences. X-Ray contrast reactions can be lethal and MRI contrast (more similar to these since it’s metal-based) occasionally kills the arteries going to kidneys, which is bad. So, it’s easy to administer, but this is far too soon to claim it is safe at scale.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

I wish the article touched on the nano particles more… like, what happens to them after you’re done? Are they dissolved or expelled (or do they pile up in various parts of the body and cause chronic issues…)?