Yeah I did a (mostly failed) PhD on ultrasonic imaging and found many things that worked in simulations but not in practice. The fancier your imaging algorithm gets the most ill posed it becomes and more sensitive to noise and errors.
Even if you add noise to your simulation , when you go to the real world it will have lots of sources of noise and errors that you didn't model. In this case I suspect aligning the CT scan with the ultrasound probe will be extremely difficult.
Also there's a reason ultrasonographers are so highly paid, and it's mostly used for pregnancies. In normal tissue it kind of sucks as an imaging method. (On an absolute scale; obviously it's amazing technology.)
In rural Rwanda, in 2008, for the duration of the study you linked after jumping at the first cherry picked example that your Google search found, they were the most frequently made examination.
But even according to that article, out of the 345 examinations only 102 were pregnancy scans, making them a minority of all scans made.
>clearly not what you were implying by saying it is a minority of scans.
It is exactly what I was saying. And I say this because I work in a hospital with several non-preggo ultrasound labs that are booked overtime. To achieve the same load of pregnancy scans the hospital would need to hire more OB-staff for scanning and the region would need a TFR of 25.
Even if you add noise to your simulation , when you go to the real world it will have lots of sources of noise and errors that you didn't model. In this case I suspect aligning the CT scan with the ultrasound probe will be extremely difficult.
Also there's a reason ultrasonographers are so highly paid, and it's mostly used for pregnancies. In normal tissue it kind of sucks as an imaging method. (On an absolute scale; obviously it's amazing technology.)
Eh maybe it will work though. You never know.