Here is the continuous disclosure ... and there goes my quibble....

Here is the continuous disclosure ... and there goes my quibble. Appreciate the update from the company.

Hey @thehero - just out of interest are they the same ones or different ones. If the latter maybe you can explain the following excerpt from today's announcement: "This technique is a probabilistic anatomical imagingapproach and is subject to further development, verification and validation. It is intended for this backgroundanatomical reconstruction to be combined with a separate series of algorithms to aid in the classification andlocalisation of stroke type."

So first up they are telling us that this is very much a work in progress, not the finished product. Secondly they point out that what they are testing is the imaging feature of the device but it is not the feature that helps with the actual assessment of the type and location of the stroke.

So my question is whether the intention is that users of the device make a diagnosis simply by looking at the image, or whether they would solely rely on a separate series of algorithms to interpret the incoming data and make a diagnosis or whether it would be a mix of looking at the image and relying on the analytical algorithms? To me it sounds a bit scary that the imaging is probably accurate rather than certainly accurate. Anyway I know shite about this and thought maybe you do. Thanks in anticipation.