Research, page-2994

The 4DX vs CYC, in my own opinion situation can be distilled into the following points:

1. Nuclear lung scans have been around for decades. They're standard practice, requires patients to inhale radioactive gas and produce much maligned and untimely (but accepted due to a lack of alternatives) imaging quality.
2. CYC produces the machinery that can produce/supply/hold the radioactive gas in healthcare practices. (similar to mining services companies providing excavators to iron ore miners)
3. 4DX could be the next generation of lung-scanners, which obviates the need for radioactive gas, producing higher quality imaging more efficiently with reimbursement codes in place. Without the need for radioactive gas for lung-imaging, bad news for CYC.
4. If 4DX's lung-scanners can demonstrate even equivalency with regards to imaging efficacy, the non-invasive option that doesn't require patients to inhale radioactive gas would be a preferred if logic prevails. The acceleration of adoption will be driven by the efficiency of the 4D scanners.

This is not financial advice and do your own research. Good luck to all holders, CYC & 4DX!