Talk:MRI contrast agent

Old talk

Hello Sjschen (and the rest of wikipedia),

Nice article. I like it. Shall we try to migrate a bit more info from the contrast section in the MRI article over here (I think you have most of it already)? We could then reduce that section in the main article - I'd like to remove most of the 2nd and all of the 3rd paragraph, once the info is all given here. What do you think? GyroMagician (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to myself, it would be nice to say something about para/dia-magnetism wrt contrast agents, but I'm not sure where to put it. Is it as simple as saying 'Paramagnetic contrast agents locally enhance magnetic field, while diamagnetic agents reduce it, both resulting in a local reduction in tissue relaxation times'? GyroMagician (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's not a bad idea, some of the content there is phrased better as well. Sjschen (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pros and cons

Can we say something about the pros and cons of Gd, Mn and Fe based agents, and maybe some distinguishing characteristics of the different Gd based ones ? Rod57 (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a start by including all the Gd agents with INNs - I'd argue only those are notable. Brownturkey (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I moved the INN list down and weeded out ones in the FDA approved list above.

Still looking for pros & cons of Gd based v Mn or Fe. Rod57 (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pros seem to be the scan type they assist. Cons are the risk of side-effects ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What else in Gd agent

What other elements/ingredients are in the injections? Is it pure Gd? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.144.214 (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update of page eg blood pool agents

Dear All,

Is anyone still working on updating this article? I would like to do some work on it but would like approval from others (editors) as I may have some conflicts of interest.

1.What about changing the title of the article to Contrast-enhanced MRI which would bring it inline with the existing article on contrast-enhanced ultrasound.

2.I would like to include more information on the different types of contrast agents

3.specifically I would like to add a section about blood pool contrast agents and what they are used for

4.I would like to have an external link to bloodpoolagents.us. Site is aimed at professionals that use these specific contrast agents, either in every day practice or more experimentally. Site does have its own independent clinical editorial board.

Many thanks,TMCBecki (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

late responses : no, yes, yes (currently is a link to blood pool agents - as a sub-type of Gd-based agent), no:coi.

Are "blood pool agents" (now and future) all Gd-based or only to be used for T1 scans or only for use in magnetic resonance angiography ? Rod57 (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of research groups

MRI contrast agent#Future research/developments in MRI contrast agents is a list of people claimed to be "working to develop the next generation of MRI contrast agents". It does not claim to be an exhaustive list. It does not define the borderline WP:PEACOCK term "next generation". While they all have cited refs, most they appear to be primary for the person or research group. By WP:NLIST, we need actual third-party cites to provide evidence of their notability (WP:BIO or similar), not just their own claims or publication record of working in this area. I think any individuals that are not bluelinked should be removed, as that's a pretty clean criterion for selection in this sort of cherry-picked list. I'll wait a few days to hear if anyone has policy/guideline opposition before cleaning it up... DMacks (talk) 03:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NMR Relaxation/stimulated emission: an error

Nuclear spin polarization does not decay (relaxation) via stimulated emission at the magnetic field strengths used for MRI. This notion is common misconception but it is completely wrong. Here are two relevant citations explaining: Hoult, DI (1989) The magnetic resonance myth of radio waves. Concepts Magn Reson 1, 1-5. Hoult, DI (2009) The origins and present status of the radio wave controversy in NMR. Concepts in Magnetic Resonance Part A 34(4), 193-216.

I deleted this part of the text, but an accurate description could be added. Tachyon 21:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janopus (talk • contribs)

Neurotoxic? Till now deposition has not been associated with toxicity

I am referring to the following statement '.....neurotoxic. Because gadolinium-based contrast agents pass the blood–brain barrier and of each bolus dose at least 1% of the gadolinium is retained and assumed to be in its free toxic state' Could you kindly provide reference for this? As far as I know deposition in the brain has not been associated with a clinical effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardpullicino (talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganise maybe by T1/T2 scan type

Many/all of the contrast agents seem intended for use in eg T1 or T2 scans, eg Gd for T1. Now alternatives to Gd are being researched for T1 scans (eg. iron not Gd metal-free) would it be helpful to reorganise this article according to the scan type the contrast agents are optimised for ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rod57: The cited article is too narrow for Wikipedia. Wikipedia strives to give an overview of MRI contrast agents, relying on WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY. For example, 12620 articles have been published on the topic. Since 2008, 846 reviews (=WP:SECONDARY) have appeared. Good articles rely on books and reviews. Otherwise we are cherry-picking.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smokefoot: I was suggesting a top level reorganisation based on scan type rather than or before/above chemistry. What do you think of that ? (I was just using the refs as examples.) eg. do any/many of the reviews discuss by scan type ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rod57: I dont know if the reviews organize discussions of the topic in the way you suggest. Looks like there are a several highly cited reviews are available to support a revision. My experience is however that chemists tend to write reviews that discuss aspirational "applications" as if they were currently implemented. Readers of this Wikipedia article will be mainly interested in present reality, as practiced in the clinic, not what a bunch of professors/researchers think should be used. Good luck.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Review Ref

There's a new review out on contrast agents, focusing on their chemistry, mechanism of action and safety aspects/attempts to replace gadolinium (doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00363). I guess it could go in several places but the article is too far out of my area for me to figure out where exactly, so I'm just going to leave it here. --Project Osprey (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of T2

There is discussion of T2 several places in this article without definition of it. Could someone with knowledge of this include an explanation? 2605:8D80:461:AF80:D121:2CEF:79F5:12A9 (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]