I find this weirdly amazing, as to this day I was reading some medical news and documentaries where it was said that entire human bodies were sliced by millimetre slices. So, somehow I always imagined that each part of body and tissue is 100% known and that only left is to find out what are inner workings on the nano-meter scale, deep molecular levels or genetic level.
We know there's stuff there, but we don't necessarily know what all of it does. In this case the tissue in question was probably thought to be part of a known larger structure, but now it turns out it has a distinct function. Slices aren't going to tell you that.
On top of that, not every one has the same tissues in the same places, or the same tissues at all. Most famous is the palmaris longus muscle in the arm.
Still easy to miss if you don't know what you're looking for, which, by definition, we didn't, because in attentional terms, What You Know Is All There Is.
Putting aside your insult to medical researchers, it's not that they couldn't account for 20% of body weight. They knew there was fluid around cells, but the tissue sampling method would not preserve it so they couldn't inspect it. With the new sampling method they could see the structure, and realized these are more like connected spaces filled with fluid rather than small individual pockets.
>Although researchers already knew that there is fluid between individual cells, the idea of a larger, connected interstitium — in which there are fluid-filled spaces within tissues — had been described only vaguely in the literature, Theise said. The new study, he said, expands the concept of the interstitium by showing these structured, fluid-filled spaces within tissues, and is the first to define the interstitium as an organ in and of itself.
I remember the cadaver labs during the school days. Really hard to spot certain (save for the really large organs which are obvious) unless you know what it is you’re looking for. Sometimes an illustration tells you it should be there but the actual structure is... underwhelming or barely visible/damaged from years of specimen abuse. Can see how things like this can be missed.
For some reason this reminds me of the joke: “If the surgeon cuts a vessel and knows the name of that vessel, the situation is serious; if the anaesthetist knows the name of the vessel the situation is irretrievable”
Strangely enough, I find the anesthesiologist sometimes knows the name of the vessels as well as the surgeon, especially for the run of the mill surgeries. Because it usually turns a 20 minute operation to 60-90 minutes (the added time to fix the mistake and find the bleeder, and go to plan B), and they miss their coffee break as a result!
>Dr. Alvand Hassankhani, a radiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, said he was hesitant to label the structures “new organs.” In addition to the three pairs of known large salivary glands, some 1,000 minor salivary glands are sprinkled across the lining of the mouth and throat. They are more petite and tougher to find through imaging or scanning than their heftier cousins. It’s possible that the Dutch researchers just happened upon a better way to image a set of underappreciated minor glands, Dr. Hassankhani said.
"Doctors identify new salivary organ".... maybe? Then I wouldn't have to open their article and I can go on my merry way. Big ups for science, thumbs down for click bait.
Right, it'll be interesting to see if this turns out to be another medical research news beat-up. As I keep repeating, hyped up medical and science stories are very counterproductive, they end up turning people away from science, as they are repeatedly disappointed when the promised 'goods aren't delivered.
Over many decades, we've seen this all too often with news releases about cancer research. It's done great harm.
Preliminary data – based on a retrospective analysis of 723 patients who underwent radiation treatment – seem to support the conclusion radiation delivered to the tubarial glands region results in greater complications for patients afterwards: a result that not only could benefit future oncology, but also seems to strengthen the case that these mysterious, overlooked structures really are salivary glands.
So we already have existing data we can kind of "retrofit" to this new mental model and get meaningful feedback that this new conclusion seems to fit with verifiable experience. That's actually pretty darn cool for a variety of reasons.
And if we do understand it, that doesn't mean a doctor knows about it.
My father was in the hospital for two days with vertigo. He was so frustrated waiting for specialists to show up that he checked himself out.
I was pissed - he's notoriously awful at listening to medical advice. I said, "Did you even wait for them to try the Epley maneuver?"[1] Turns out they didn't even suggest it. I only know about it because my grandmother has it done regularly for her vertigo. And it seems to have solved his problem.
I'm sure it's already in the threads, but that recalls the old joke, "What do you call a medical student with a D average?"
Question for those medical HN ppl:
What is definition of organ?
I mean before when people were doing surgeries and slicing through interstitium, mesentery or different glands, were surgeon thinking "i will just slice through this slimy thing that does not do anything" or there was more thought about it?
Before people were removing on regular bases appendix or tonsil, now understanding about the role has changed... so
How does something becomes an organ after 100 years of modern technology?
Just to clarify I meant would it be possible in future that part of let say heart could become an organ?
Not a medical person, but I think this is much like asking "what's a species?". Nature is clearly clumpy, your body has one heart & two lungs & they have obviously different tissues & purposes. But precisely how many organs, and precisely where you draw the divides, is something we don't have sharp answers to. We adjust as we go along.
Readit News
But in 2018 there was a similar news about Interstitium: https://www.livescience.com/62128-interstitium-organ.html
In 2017 there was mesentery: https://www.livescience.com/57370-mesentery-new-organ-identi...
Now we have this. So, reading this left me with one though "hidden in plain sight" and wondering what else is there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmaris_longus_muscle
~14% of humans lack this muscle.
Other deviations range from colorblindness all the way to lack of a cerebellum entirely.
Humans are quite variable, even when healthy.
The Visible Human Project
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPPjUtiAGYs
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150601122445.h...
A new ligament discovered next to the ACL
new eye layer
Dead Comment
Wow. How could we possibly have missed this? Medical researchers must tend non-quantitative.
>Although researchers already knew that there is fluid between individual cells, the idea of a larger, connected interstitium — in which there are fluid-filled spaces within tissues — had been described only vaguely in the literature, Theise said. The new study, he said, expands the concept of the interstitium by showing these structured, fluid-filled spaces within tissues, and is the first to define the interstitium as an organ in and of itself.
It's easy to spot them on a 3D render where they are bright yellow. In real life, it's just different textures of meat with slightly different hues.
>Doctors May Have Found Secretive New Organs in the Center of Your Head
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/19/health/saliva-glands-new-...
>Dr. Alvand Hassankhani, a radiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, said he was hesitant to label the structures “new organs.” In addition to the three pairs of known large salivary glands, some 1,000 minor salivary glands are sprinkled across the lining of the mouth and throat. They are more petite and tougher to find through imaging or scanning than their heftier cousins. It’s possible that the Dutch researchers just happened upon a better way to image a set of underappreciated minor glands, Dr. Hassankhani said.
"Doctors identify new salivary organ".... maybe? Then I wouldn't have to open their article and I can go on my merry way. Big ups for science, thumbs down for click bait.
Over many decades, we've seen this all too often with news releases about cancer research. It's done great harm.
Good one.
Preliminary data – based on a retrospective analysis of 723 patients who underwent radiation treatment – seem to support the conclusion radiation delivered to the tubarial glands region results in greater complications for patients afterwards: a result that not only could benefit future oncology, but also seems to strengthen the case that these mysterious, overlooked structures really are salivary glands.
So we already have existing data we can kind of "retrofit" to this new mental model and get meaningful feedback that this new conclusion seems to fit with verifiable experience. That's actually pretty darn cool for a variety of reasons.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/brain-c...
That's not a knock on medicine or science, just a simple statement of fact. That is, there is plenty we have yet to understand.
My father was in the hospital for two days with vertigo. He was so frustrated waiting for specialists to show up that he checked himself out.
I was pissed - he's notoriously awful at listening to medical advice. I said, "Did you even wait for them to try the Epley maneuver?"[1] Turns out they didn't even suggest it. I only know about it because my grandmother has it done regularly for her vertigo. And it seems to have solved his problem.
I'm sure it's already in the threads, but that recalls the old joke, "What do you call a medical student with a D average?"
"Doctor."
[1] https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/treatment-tests-and-t...
The dumbed-down article seems to miss that inadvertent irradiation of the tubarial glands contributes to dry mouth in patients with cancer.
How does something becomes an organ after 100 years of modern technology? Just to clarify I meant would it be possible in future that part of let say heart could become an organ?