My thoughts. Ultrasound may provide more accurate diagnosis for soft tissue damage vs. radiographic image scans (X-ray, CT scan). Both are regularly used in veterinary medicine. However, that accuracy is not likely to be as accurate as the Bioharp may prove to be. It depends on the medical condition and skill of the physician, when it comes to current imaging scanning diagnostics (the Bioharp is not an image scanning, or naked-eye technology). I argue this because you are more likely to reach false positive as well as false negative readings with ultrasound. Any technology that is largely user-dependent, where interpretation as a skill is involved, can cause that, while with any imaging scan you can acquire physical interference in the image. I also think MRI technology is likely more accurate than ultrasound, based on image projection quality, but since this technology is less available in veterinary medicine, they must rely on other technologies, other means of diagnosis.
This is a big reason why I'm very high on the Bioharp. It reduces the chance for misreadings, while it appears to place much of the intelligence in the software, which should reduce the training time for physicians and veterinarians to be able to read and interpret results. Becoming a skilled radiologist requires years of study, and is confined to physicians (not to be confused with radiology technicians). If what I'm saying is accurate about the Bioharp in terms of training and standard of expertise, then you have something that is a huge technical breakthrough, not just for diagnosis, but because of the training required, will facilitate for a more rapid adoption by health professionals. That said, the Bioharp is intended to be used in conjunction with other diagnostic instruments, to work in tandem. Since the Bioharp's strength appears to be its capacity for early diagnosis, it could become the first preference for many protocols.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
