Retail investors not included

Honestly I'm circumspect about the market size. I am curious about this stock, and haven't made a decision yet in either direction. One the one hand, I don't particularly see diagnostic uncertainty amongst cardiologists (or more correctly - their extremely well-trained echo technicians). Severe AS is not an occult finding.

On the other, heart failure is a huge market, and diastolic heart failure is the most significant under-diagnosed sub-type (not yet addressed by EIQ). And very intelligent physiologists and software engineers would (hopefully) not be wasting their time on a solution in search of a problem.

My early hypothesis is that the value proposition of EIQ is not being meaningfully "better" at diagnosis, but "faster and cheaper". Such may make full echo studies faster by the sonographers (who take years to train), meaning they can get more studies (and revenue( done per unit time, or formal reporting by a cardiologist faster (More reports per unit time).

There may be edge cases where an echo diagnosis can be made that would otherwise be missed, but realistically most of these diagnoses can be made on clinical grounds. I dont think EIQ will find more heart failure, but it may make it cheaper and faster to diagnose

TL;DR: not sure yet, likely positive value for users, probably will take a small position IRL and SM, will probably save cardiologists' money rather than save lives

Thanks @Aaronfzr for your thoughts. That was my thought wrt scans before, having had an echo myself. Then I read the attached and thought it may have more legs than I thought.

EIQ St V's research Dec 2022.pdf

Looking forward to seeing where it goes.

Nessy

Its a good result, and really interesting. Ill try to find the full scientific article to address some of the issues. The real question is, "of those cases which EIQ-alone diagnosed, how many went on to have a change in therapy?"

if EIQ is finding clinically relevant heart disease, its a massive result. But if its finding cases which are more of an incidental imaging curiousity, which when put together with the patient condition or other tests, doesn't really change anything for the patient, then its much less impressive. Note that in that press release they only talk about outcomes for ALL severe AS, not EIQ-only patients.

the other question is how many false positives does it raise? If it finds more edge-cases but puts hundreds more through unnecessary tests then it may not be economical or good for the over-diagnosed patients.

Im not negging the tech, its massive if its as good as they hope. And would presumably be a platform to explore other heart diagnoses.