Not much of a contribution on my part but can confirm what @TycoonTerry is saying.

At the moment mobile stroke units using CTs (about US$1.2m capex and US$1m in opex for staff) are used primarily to direct patients to best point of care e.g. a primary stroke center.

Downsides to CT include the need to stop traffic while taking image (vibration distorts image) - not ideal.

This has roughly led to patients being treated 45 minutes faster than they otherwise would with every second having a pretty profound impact (1.9m neurons die a minute - it can be the difference between walking and being confined to a wheelchair).

So I would agree that the question is not whether there is a clinical need, but whether their device can prove comparable (at a minimum) to the current standard of care. Given the clinical risk involved in making a type II error (null hypothesis being ischaemic stroke) I imagine they will need a lot of data to back it up and a lot of time/education before clinicians are confident in the device.

If it delivers there is a key cost benefit (capex + opex) which will allow for mobile stroke units to become widespread.

Also would like to highlight that while its natural to have a "Aus" centric view of this companies future, the opportunity is most likely to be furnished in the US.

^info above came from NY based stroke neurologist