Tiresias: Whither current pathology?, page-5

In reply to the Prophet’s post and with reference to a post dated 12/02/22 at titled Mauna Kea Technologies is not as good as Optiscanwhich stated:

Ex-vivo (outside the living body) --- Whilst Optiscan’s focus in on the living (human and animal) there is no reason why the technology cannot be used for post mortem tissue analysis. Perhaps the differentiation between Covid-19 and the influenza? I contend that the examination of cancers in a corpse may provide a useful base for an artificial intelligence (AI) database. As long as the tissue is preserved properly.

A couple of questions arise.

First, does medical equipment used in post mortems [an autopsy] require TGA or FDA approval in the relevant countries? Intuitively the answer is no but the relevant laws may capture it due to the wide scope for the definition of medical equipment. If no, then the Coroners Court of Victoria ( [email protected] ) and others in the country should have Optiscan’s InVivage or FIVE2 now!

Secondly, what is the feasibility, as an adjunct to post mortems, for the creation of a cancer image library using InVivage, that amongst other things can assist in the creation of an AI cancer database. Not forgetting images of normal tissue as well.