Talk:Magnetic resonance imaging/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

MRI and the Human Body

Magnetic resonance imaging is working in my opinion is because of Iron Atoms in the blood that exists in the brain and the whole body. Your website is mentioning that the Hydrogen atoms in the water molecules in the human body is responsible for magnetic resonance imaging.

Dr. Fayyaz A. Lohar Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering

What university gave you your Ph.D? I need to write them a sternly worded letter. 155.105.7.44 (talk)

Why has so much science been stripped from article? Too much of this article reads like a dumbed-down pamphlet from a doctor's office. Having segregated the actual science, you have done the readers a disservice: ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_magnetic_resonance_imaging

The resulting article is shameful and unworthy of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendaEM (talk • contribs) 06:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk content lost

It looks like discussions started between July 2009 and Dec 2009 are not here or in Archive 1. Rod57 (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Is MRI safe?

I'm currently preparing to a degree in diagnostic radiography and this article has been very useful. Thanks to all who worked on it.

One thing I would query though is the article's claim that MRI is harmless (See Application section). Everything I have read says that it is believed to be safe but that this has never been proven.

I will not edit the article as there are obviously much better qualified people than me to do so but if MRI has been proven to be safe then there should be a reference and if it has not then this sentence needs to be amended.GordyB 15:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Since it is impossible to conclusively prove a negative theory (i.e. Nobody has/will ever be harmed during an MRI exam), nobody can or should conclusively say that it is 100% safe. There have been accidents and people have been injured and even died as a consequence of mishaps during the MRI exam. That said, people are killed every year, tipping vending machines over on themselves because their $0.75 bag of potato chips get hung up on the dispenser. We don't fear vending machines because we understand them to be harmless when "used as directed". The MRI is similar. As long as the patient is appropriately screened for contraindications, the device is properly maintained, the patient is properly positioned within the device, and the technologist and/or radiographer executes the scan correctly, it is about as close to harmless as you can get. However, since there are a number of conditions that should be met for safety, I've added links to checklists, both for patients and for providers under the 'Safety' heading. --Tgilk (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Note all of the radiation in MRI machines is non-iozising--129.31.240.165 (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ditto - absolutely no ionizing radiation in the MRI. Note that wounded combat veterans with fragments of shrapnel implanted in their bodies should not use MRIs -- but such people should be screened out from receiving MRI exams. Otherwise is sheer stupidity. 98.67.167.49 (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal research, of an example of the common symptom of 'cooking off' as the technicians called it, where the body part being scanned feels extremely hot (I believe nerve stimulation, the two paragraphs on it, is meant to address this) is so common technicians usually tip you off if they're using that scan method that is known to cause it. During a particular cycle I experienced severe pain in an elbow joint, as an extremely fit, rational, sane, and non-anxious individual I ignored it until it became un-ignorable, and at the same point during the repeat of the cycle that joint exhibited extreme pain. That got me to googling, where I found the above mentioned site. Whilst there are obvious cases of hypochondriacs and batshit insane people from Manilla (the mind control girl) I can't see why all of these cases would be dismissed and this wouldn't lead to further academic investigation.

On examining this page to see what the 'official' side effects are listed as, I was quite confused as to why they're played down significantly more than what even the techs warn you you will experience. I'm still scatterbrained as fuck, and it took me about a half hour after the end of the MRI to be able to regain my focus enough to drive myself home. If I were in any way a person who is even open to suggestion I would (and still did) question the after effects and question their association with the MRI procedure, but when you have hundreds of normal fit people reporting the exact same feelings from the exact same procedures I don't know about you but it definitely makes me wonder. It'd be interesting to seek out and at least represent the point of view that it is feasible that side effects do occur, given that MRI technology isn't 'provably safe' (nor provably unsafe) by the same token it's possible negatives are mentioned it's possible side effects, at least within the realms of what technicians tell you when you have one done, should be mentioned. ʇdɯoɹdɥsɐq (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There are over 300 observed adverse reaction comments (including from medical specialists) to mri/mra at this site from 2008 to present: http://trusted.md/blog/anji/2008/02/06/mri_side_effects#comment-14689 81.111.36.221 (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. 300+ unrelated, anecdotal comments about "feeling weird" with zero controls. Can anyone say "nocebo"? 155.105.7.44 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am entertained to see the page also has some discussion of mind-reading machines run by governments. More seriously, adverse reactions are very difficult to monitor. After installing a 7T, my lab ran a volunteer questionnaire for a while that asked "Did you feel nauseous?", "Did you feel dizzy?", etc. At some point we changed it to "Did you feel anything unusual?" The reports of any unusual feeling dropped hugely. I'm not commenting of whether there are/are not any adverse reactions (the above comments cover that well), I'm simply pointing out that people are much harder to measure than physical phenomena! GyroMagician (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a well-known fact in psychology and medicine that if you ask a large set of people (e.g. 100 to 200), "Did that make you nauseous?", then some of them will answer "Yes" just because of the power of suggestion. The same for "Did that give you a headache?" or 100 other different things. 98.67.167.49 (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The statement "There is no evidence for biological harm from even very powerful static magnetic fields." may be true but should be qualified imo. The source referenced is an article from 2004, citing a study from the 1980's where no biological harm was found in humans exposed (short term) to field strengths up to 3T, and the health of rats didn't seem affected after 10 weeks at 9.4T. The FDA currently allows up to 8T for clinical (short-term) use. Some studies saw modified cognitive function in brief exposures, and cell morphology in long exposures, which theoretically could lead to pathological changes, but still no harm was found. The latest confirmed data shows no harm in humans exposed to 9.4T for short durations. I propose replacing the statement with: "There is no evidence for biological harm in humans from short-term exposure to static magnetic fields up to 9.4T in strength." and updating the source: http://www.mrisafety.com/safety_article.asp?subject=229 -Mark Nelson 66.194.230.26 (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The k-space formalism

Surely k-space was introduced by Mansfield and Grannell in 1973? The paper does not explicitly call the formalism k-space, but the maths is identical and the idea is clearly reciprocal space as used in crystalography. The Ljunggren paper is certainly a clear and helpful explanation, but the idea is older.

P. Mansfield and P. K. Grannell, NMR 'diffraction' in solids?, J. Phys. C.: Solid State Physics, Vol.6, L422-426, 1973. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.178.53.61 (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who worked in the field at the time, I don't think that anyone realized that the an MRI scan was a scan in the Fourier-space of the object until Ljunggren published his paper. The proof of this assertion can be found in the complicated mathematics Mansfield himself (and others) used to reconstruct EPI images - once you understand the k-space formalism, the most natural thing to do is to interpolate to a Cartesian grid and simply perform the 2-D Fourier Transform ! --PloniAlmoni (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC).

I agree that it is not evident from Mansfield (1973) but surely it was pretty obvious from Richard Ernst's paper (Imaging of macroscopic objects by NMR Fourier zeugmatography) in Naturwissenschaften, 1975. Brownturkey (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The formula describing the "Inverse Fourier Transform" to go from k-space to image is actually a forward Fourier Transform...can someone fix it? 129.97.72.186 (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge 2D-FT NMRI and Spectroscopy

Hello Wikipedians. We appear to have two pages covering almost exactly the same content. To save dividing our effort and confusing readers, I suggest we merge 2D-FT NMRI and Spectroscopy into this article. What do you think? GyroMagician (talk) 07:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Has some additional content around the math. Perhaps that section should be a sub article. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There is some good information on that page, yes. After thinking about it and re-reading, maybe a better approach is to take out imaging from 2D-FT NMRI and Spectroscopy. I know both are basically a FT, but I think they are different enough to be worth discussing separately. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy is currently a brief page - perhaps merging that with 2D-FT NMRI and Spectroscopy would be better? We seem to have a whole mesh of badly connected Magnetic Resonance related pages on wikipedia - I'd like to try to straighten them out a bit. GyroMagician (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that the Mathematics aspect of the 2D-FT NMRI and Spectroscopy page shouldn't be merged with the MRI page. Perhaps 2DFT should just get its own page, but move all MRI related information to the MRI page?Mavrisa (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

2D-FT NMR spectroscopy is not MRI, although the former can be combined with MRI to vastly improve the latter. The overlap is thus only partial and cannot be employed as a basis for a merger, as it is conceptually inconsistent. Thus the suggestions made byMavrisa (talk) are inappropriate for this subject matter. — comment added by Prisecar (talk • contribs) 16:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Vladislav Ivanov

Please provide a reference to Vladislav Ivanov in a reliable secondary source preferably in EnglishBrownturkey (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[1] Alone Coder (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Care to explain how this helps? From the abstract, it doesn't appear related. We're looking for something directly discussing the role of Ivanov. GyroMagician (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't you see the fulltext preview below? Alone Coder (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've read the paper now. I still don't really think it helps. I'd like to see some discussion of exactly what method Ivanov proposed. I realise finding an English-language reference is particularly difficult in this case, but there must be something out there. Having searched around a bit, I think this claim probably has some merit, but we really need a solid reference - claims to the invention of MRI have been a 'sensitive' topic previously ;-) GyroMagician (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

His interview: [2] (translated from Russian [3]). Alone Coder (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if Inauka is a reliable source (my knowledge of Russian media is zero!) but if you say it's suitable, I'll trust you. The interview certainly looks like a good source. I guess we can also argue that Wikipedia does not hold an opinion about the claim, but should only report that the claim is made, which the interview shows. Unless anyone else disagrees (Abecedare?), I think you can go ahead and put it into the article. Well found! GyroMagician (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Inauka may not be but Nature is! Brownturkey (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the Izvestia interview verifies that Ivanov says that he "defined the principles of a method and contained the layout of a device that’s called ‘magnetic resonance imaging equipment’", and that Lauterbur "was virtually using the design developed by Ivanov." However, what we lack are sufficient secondary sources that analyze and/or support Ivanov's claims. Till date we only have one sentence in an article translated from the Russian language journal Izmeritel’naya Tekhnika that says, "Ivanov in 1960 suggested that nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) should be used for the local examination of objects in magnetic field gradients." That is promising (aside: if Ivanov did indeed propose the use of magnetic gradients, he IMO would have a much stronger claim to the invention of MRI than Damadian) - but still too meager to include this redflag claim in our article. Since the invention of MRI has been discussed by dozens (hundreds ?) of books and journal articles, and also examined (presumably) deeply by the Nobel committee, adding this claim based on the subjects own words and one throwaway sentence in a respectable, but relatively obscure, Russian journal would be undue. As a tertiary source we should be reflecting the consensus of the most reliable secondary sources on the subject (even if they are wrong!), and they don't seem to have addressed Ivanov's claim.
Brownturkey, you mention a Nature paper. Can you expand on that ? Abecedare (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a news item in VOL 426 p 375 (27 NOVEMBER 2003). It confirms that the claim was made and that the international scientific community is aware of it. It doesn't of course attempt to arbitrate on the claims of Damadian vs Mansfield vs Gabillard vs Carr Vs Ivanov vs Lauterbur etc - but neither does the text in our article. Brownturkey (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice one BT - Nature piece GyroMagician (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! That makes the claim worth adding to the article, and the sentence BT added covers it nicely (sorry, I missed seeing it yesterday; would have saved me from writing the above dated opinion). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Basic MRI Imaging

Under this section, it appears that the "flair" in the chart is vandalism. I am not familiar with this topic and I am not sure if it is vandalism or not. Please correct if this is vandalism ^The World 14:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, but I think it's okay - MRI is full of 'clever' acronyms, this one is Fluid_attenuated_inversion_recovery GyroMagician (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok that makes more sense, Thanks ^The World 00:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

A small point, I'm new, not sure if this is the right place, was reading the Claustrophobia and discomfort section, listening to music on headphones or watching a movie with a Head-mounted display while in the machine

seems to be a bad suggestion to me - pretty much no metal items can be in the same room as an MRI scanner, and my headphones certainly have metal... is there a tolerance, or should claustrophobics just grin and bear it? Missy Sunshine (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It actually does help getting over discomfort and also distracts, music helps relaxing, I think there are even studies out that show how compliance increases with music. As to headphones not working: most of the times these are pneumatic systems (like for old time hospital beds), headphones are also needed for patient communication and for given breath-hold commands. The HMD most of the time is not one, rather than "glasses" with prisms or mirrors that allow the patient to look at a screen at the end of the bore, but there is at least one company selling MRI compatible HMD's. Just my two cents.

Loeffler (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I just had an MRI of my lower back yesterday morning and with the system they used, music was a complete waste of effort... the MRI machine was so noisy I couldn't hear the music anyway. I had no headset available to me, all I had was ear plugs and a panic button. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.131.22 (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The topic of positioning information needs some serious expansion. So far it is covered by exactly one sentence: "Additional magnetic fields are applied during the scan to make the magnetic field strength depend on the position within the patient, providing a straightforward method to control where the protons are excited by the radio photons." Yes, but how does one get precise position information out of a magnetic field that would seem to vary gradually with position? JKeck (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

J Keck, you need to know a lot more about signal processing; averaging many measurements to obtain one result that is better than its ingredients; convolutions; and other such things. Do not expect to understand at just one look at a (necessarily) short article.98.67.165.211 (talk) 02:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The topic of positioning is covered in Physics_of_Magnetic_Resonance_Imaging Brownturkey (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't cite references?

In a discussion of basic physics, some wiki editor has wiki-vandalized the section with the "no cites" bar. The irony is that Bobo the Clown could put up an HTML 1.0 page with erroneous info about the workings of NMRI and this could count as a "reference", if the rest of this encyclopedia is anything to go by.

This kind of nonsense is an insult to everyone's intelligence. Some very knowledgeable people spent their good time explaining how the physics of NMRI works, and now I have to trip over WikiVandalism™ to read it? Uh-huh.

I'm curious which of the assertions in the first two sentences need a cite. That we're ugly bags of mostly water? That water consists of an oxygen molecule covalently bonded to two hydrogen molecules (I should cite myself, after all I performed water electrolysis in Life Sciences class in 7th grade), or that a hydrogen molecule is a proton? I suppose I should pity anyone who needs to take these facts on authority, and pity even more the dweeb who demands a reference (appeal to authority) on knowledge which is the common patrimony of humankind.

Keep it classy, Wikipedia. 198.212.141.100 (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"In most medical applications, protons (hydrogen atoms) in tissues ..." OK. So, we must have someone who can fix this absurdity.ExpatSalopian (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Split?

It seems that this page is larger than the 100 KB that WP:SIZERULE suggests is the point where an article almost certainly needs to be split. I think splitting would be justified and propose we make subarticles for:

• Physics of magnetic resonance imaging or Physics of nuclear magnetic resonance
• Safety of magnetic resonance imaging
• Applications of nuclear magnetic resonance or Applications of magnetic resonance imaging

Better names? Thoughts? Smocking (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, I seem to have missed Abecedare's earlier proposal, but consider this a relist to get a wider discussion. Smocking (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's another suggestion

• Retain Magnetic Resonance Imaging but pare it down to about 20% of its current size: introduction, basic applications, history, economics
• Physics of magnetic resonance imaging - how it works
• Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Radiological Diagnosis - i.e. the basic routine applications the average citizen would encounter in any hospital (and which in the USA are reimbursable!)
• Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Medical Research - all those emerging and obscure techniques which various enthusiasts have introduced to this article over the years - I agree they are certainly encyclopaedic, but they would not normally be encountered by the average citizen or even the average radiologist!
• regarding safety it might be ideal to discuss the safety of all clinical medical imaging modalities Risks of Medical Imaging Procedures in one place to cover contrast media, MR fields, ionising radiation etc - to give it a bit more balance
• might need a separate History of Magnetic Resonance Imaging as this is an emotive topic

Brownturkey (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the length (and breadth) of the MR safety section, and the fact that the elements of MR safety have nearly zero overlap with other medical imaging safety issues, I prefer Smocking's recommended parse. Tgilk (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course we should keep the article. Trimming it to 20% might be a bit too ambitious; 50% would be a good start. It would still need to have summaries of the topics split into sub-articles. I also agree that the experimental stuff not widely applied clinically should get it's own article. Even as a researcher I've never heard about some of them, so perhaps we should also check if they have verifiable notability and just delete those that don't. I'm not entirely sure about Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Radiological Diagnosis - do you mean things like diffusion MRI, MR angiography and FMRI? I don't really think that's a good idea because those topics already have separate articles for the most part. FLAIR and other sequences for anatomical imaging could be moved to the physics page. Smocking (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

For Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Radiological Diagnosis - probably not a very good title - I was thinking about the routine techniques that are used in a general radiology department on a daily basis in the brain, pelvis, musculoskeletal system etc - T1-weighted, T2-weighted, post-Gd etc. Even fMRI and DWI are not really that routine in the general hospital setting. Brownturkey (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus in this proposal and the previous one about forking off an MR physics article. I'll start working on that later this week unless someone objects. Smocking (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I agree that the three sections are a good idea - physics, clinical, and research. How about Clinical use of MRI and Research use of MRI? -kslays (talk • contribs) 15:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem:: Written like a textbook

The major flaw with this article is that it is written like a textbook, and not like an encyclopedia entry. Long Te & Long Tr times? Who the hell cares? If you're a radiology/MRI person, you shouldn't be reading wikipedia in the first place as your primary source of information.

This whole article needs to be re written with the lay person in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.32.194.20 (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but cannot understand enough of that section of the article to make the changes you suggest. Oh, the irony. Missy Sunshine (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the article should be restructured. One way this could be organized is to match the structure of the article on computed tomography, another medical imaging technique whose article is much clearer. This would mean the contents like:

• Diagnostic Use
  • heart
  • brain, etc
• Advantages and Disadvantages
• Process/Physical description of how it works
• History

Deciwill (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm a layperson, but I could understand it. Please do not fall into the current wikipedia hysteria for dumbing everything down. Perhaps the dumbers-down are actually vandals? Written like a textbook is not a problem fo rme - it is a plus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.210.51.189 (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Loudness

Currently, the page says:

As a reference, 120 dB is the threshold of loudness causing sensation in the human ear canal — tickling, and 140 dB is the threshold of ear pain. Since decibel is a logarithmic measurement, a 10 dB increase equates to a 10-fold increase in intensity— in acoustics, each 3.0 dB increase is roughly equal to a doubling of loudness.

Is this correct? Clearly dB's are on a logarithmic scale (+3dB => doubling the SPL), but I thought human loudness perception was also logarithmic? This would mean +3.0 dB SPL produces some increase in perceived loudness, but doubling the SPL (in dB) would double the apparent loudness. Am I completely wrong here? GyroMagician (talk) 07:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are. The fact that the human auditory response is logarithmic is exactly what make decibels useful here. 98.67.165.211 (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Trim for clarity and flow

As many have said, this article is a complex shambles. Over the next little while I intend to incrementally improve it - in many cases by trimming some of the over-complex information. I'll proceed with caution, but would appreciate it if the subject experts watching could keep an eye on my changes - to ensure that they're not misleading or incorrect. Snori (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Jargon

• I have flagged the article as containing too much jargon. As others have mentioned, much of the article should be re-written with the layperson in mind, and perhaps the more technical information should be split to subarticles. However terminology like T1, T2 or echo time should be defined before usage in this article.

Deciwill (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm a layperson, but I could understand it. Please do not fall into the current wikipedia hysteria for dumbing everything down. Perhaps the dumbers-down are actually vandals? I'd agree with a simple intro followed by detailed technical explanations; but we don't want to lose the technical detail. What would be the point of the entry if it were to go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.210.51.189 (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

History of MRI

This comes up from time-to-time, and we still don't have a good history section. I've just undone a pair of edits from anon IPs. No, it wasn't Bottomley, or Damadian, or any other single person who invented the modern MR machine. I would expect a history to include Nottingham, Aberdeen, Oxford, Zürich (can you spot my British bias?). But there are many others. It's an interesting story - it would be good to at least list some of the major points. Is anyone game? GyroMagician (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

GyroMagician, no, I'm not up for that, not qualified. But: It seems that the Paul Lauterbur material in the first paragraph is out-of-place chronologically and should be moved to the middle of the fourth paragraph. Thoughts? Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The entire section on MRI history and the 2003 Nobel Prize should be removed. It's biased, commercialized, and historically wrong. The references given are partly attributed to the wrong authors. The entire article is unprofessional and messy. Someone should re-write it completely. Check the website of the Nobel Prize and www.magnetic-resonance.org. The first scientist who used NMR in tissue and medical applications was Erik Odeblad in Stockholm in 1954/55. Paul C. Lauterbur (Stony Brook, NY, USA) invented MR imaging in 1971 (first scientific publication in Nature in 1973). Peter Mansfield (Nottingham, UK) could share the Nobel Prize for MR imaging in 2003 with Lauterbur for "the further development" of the method. Raymond Damadian has commercialized Odeblad's and Lauterbur's ideas. His scientific claims are wrong and not reproducible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.169.84.114 (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous, well, in lieu of rewriting the entire article, for now, it seems that the Lauterbur material in the first paragraph is out-of-place chronologically and should be moved to the middle of the fourth paragraph. Does anyone specifically object to this? If not, I'll try my hand at that one change. Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The Lauterbur material is now in chronological order. Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I then added citations for Carr's Harvard PhD thesis, and to p. 253 of vol. 1 of the 1996 Encyclopedia of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance for the 1952 date of Carr's first 1D image. Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

MRI of brain and brain stem

I just discovered the page MRI of brain and brain stem - it was recently been added to Template:Medical imaging. I don't think 'MRI of B&BS' adds anything that isn't already discussed here. Shall we simply delete it? GyroMagician (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Response at Talk:MRI of brain and brain stem. --Arcadian (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

It has come to my attention that the history section in this article has been greatly expanded. Whoever did the editing did a pretty good job. However, if I could make one suggestion, please let me explain. Reading through the section, I notice that there is a lot of historical dates, etc that are not put in chronological order. It begins with the history of the MRI in the early 1970's and then closer to the bottom of the section, it then talks about Herman Carr's contributions in the 1950s. So with that said and if there are no objections, can we please put the history section in its correct chronological order? The way it is right now, it is difficulat to tell who did what or contributed first. Yoganate79 (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, I was intending to do the same but haven't had time yet - please go ahead if you do. It is difficult to tell who contributed what first, as the story is rather tangled. Herman Carr has a good claim to be the first, and while he clearly had the method (field gradients for localisation), it isn't clear he was thinking about imaging. His contribution is something of an outlier - he was also significantly earlier than the main development. Then we skip to the 70s. Damadian was (I think) first to build a whole body machine, but he certainly wasn't thinking about imaging - he was much more interested in localised relaxation measurements, primarily as a method for investigating cancer. He was certainly running whole body NMR, but I'm not sure we can call it MRI. But all three - Mansfield, Lauterbur and Damadian - played a significant role in the development of NMR as a diagnostic tool. For lots more names, there is a good rundown here.

A question - how far back should the history section go? Should we include the early development of NMR (Bloch, et al) or not? Strictly, we have a separate page for NMR, but the history of MRI doesn't make much sense without them. I would like to see a short history of NMR as an opening to the history of MRI, but I'd like to know what others think. GyroMagician (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

MRI was initially called NMR Imaging (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance). It got changed because patients were freaked out about the word 'Nuclear' which confused them into thinking the machine used some kind of dangerous radiation and was related to radioactive materials. Hence the industry dropped the Nuclear part. --71.38.172.171 (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Ariel S. Orasud

Does anyone have a source for Ariel S. Orasud (see recent edits in the history section)? A quick Google shows a single link to this page. While there is a world beyond Google, it's a little suspicious. GyroMagician (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I have checked Google books and did a cross check on all search engines and it indeed is a bogus edit. No such person named Ariel S. Orasud exists, at least concerning the field of MRI. Yoganate79 (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

real-time mri movie

Real-time MRI movie

This is one of our movies for possible inclusion:

Real-time MRI of a human heart at a resolution of 50 ms

Martin.uecker (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That is amazing! If you ask me, this should be included in the article. Norman21 (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:BB and add it then. Yoganate79 (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Clean up Economics of MRI

This section has already been flagged as overly focused on the United States, but perhaps we can discuss it a bit and get things straightened out. It looks like someone added some info about France, but it's not clearly written and a bit political. Does anybody know if the 150 euro cost refers to the upfront cost to the patient, or the actual incurred cost of the exam? At a minimum the spelling and grammar need to be cleaned up, but I'm not entirely sure what's being said. As for the rest, I don't really see why billing practices or cost-to-patient are relevant to this article. That belongs in a discussion of health insurance systems, not in an article about a diagnostic procedure. Perhaps it would be better just to discuss the machine cost and possibly mention that the number of MRI machines per-capita is often used as a metric for gauging the level of development and affluence (among other things) of healthcare systems in various countries/regions. Opinions?Akigawa (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned up the text a bit, as well as removing the political slight added. I'm not sure if the patient cost is really necessary, but at least now it is clearer. Aevin1387 (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I went ahead and edited that section a bit more to remove the implication that MRIs are only performed on cancer pts and streamline things a bit. I'm still not sure if the 150 euro figure is the patient cost or the actual cost, which would be important to know. I propose removing all detailed information about pt cost for reasons given above. If something needs to be included, how about average pt cost in Canada, EU, US, etc? No need to go in to detail about insurance reimbursement or exactly what services each country provides for the fee. I'm going to hold off on making those changes until a few people chime in with their opinions though.Akigawa (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

My My Professor and I duplicated Varians invention of NMR in 1950! why aren't the Stanford Prof and Varian mentioned

DR. Walter c. Caldwell and I duplcated the invention at Iowa State College in 1950! Surely this history should mention Varian and the Prof from Stanford!

Richard W. Towle, a good Physicist and Engineer. dick178@gmail.com 99.152.23.13 (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have scholarly published sources for this? Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, is a place to summarize existing work. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The European Physical Agents Directive

Do we really need this long discussion? Martin.uecker (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe greatly condense/summarise - eg the whole speculative para on "static field strength to 2 T" could go ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-medical imaging? Archeology

It's primarily known for this, but it is far from its only use - should the opening sentence not reflect this? 131.111.53.24 (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. This article does not have information about common applications, whether medical or otherwise. I know that MRI is used to examine fragile archeological finds but I do not know where to find a fundamental article on this topic. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Indications

I just added an "indications" section in the safety section. This procedure deserves a stand-along indications section with an overview of when MRI is typically used in healthcare. I started a small section in safety because of a particular side effect of its use in healthcare, with that being that MRI is often overused. I wanted to keep this section short but I do not immediately have the best source for what I started. Many scholarly papers say something to the effect of "MRI is overused in this case; first use X instead..." but I do not have an overview of the scope of overuse in unrelated fields. I am thinking of making a general overuse of procedures article, probably with an MRI section, but I am not there yet. I think that I added enough information for now, but I have other ideas for where to take this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I would assume that the statement that MRI is overused relates to its cost efficiency and not its minimal risk to the patient. Martin.uecker (talk) 07:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Quantitative structural MRI for early detection of Alzheimer’s disease

No mention of Quantitative structural MRI for early detection of Alzheimer’s disease. 2010, neither the technique or the application. - Rod57 (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

URL for Sijbers 1996 appropriate (COPYVIO? and URL stability)

I just found and added a a URL for Sijbers 1996 - [4] What I can't find is anything on the site (University of Antwerp Vision Lab) is public domain (despite it being publicly accessible on the Internet..) The URL location might also change - but then, that's a problem Wikipedia has with any external link.

Is this link to a publicly accessible copy of a source paper appropriate - generally, and this source one specifically?

Jimw338 (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Positive Effects of an MRI - Momentary or Long-term Stimulation

After receiving an MRI today I had an increased level of stimulation, feelings of being solid/ fully in my body & a strong centered/focused feeling with high levels of jubilation. I felt almost like I could burst from excitement. The feelings have carried on for a few hours now, but I notice when I get distracted by the computer or other menial tasks that my energy returns to semi-normal levels (still higher than normal), but then when i disconnect & focus fully on reality I am much stronger again (seemingly due to the mri). It is possible to build a magnetic field in between your hands by moving them back and forth slowly. The MRI felt like it was doing this to my whole body. I had to mentally control the fluctuating field at one point so that it (the magnetic field being built between my body & the machine) didn't go out of control & dissipate/ become un-graspabale (as is experienced when building the field in between your hands when you move your hands too quickly or too far apart after the field has been built up strong enough to feel). I was able to keep the field balanced until the end of the mri, at which point it felt like the whole energy field sucked into me (around the neck chakra i think).Most of the mri modes felt like they were charging me up, but the final mode is what really did it, where it was fluctuating quicker & quicker. It was a great experience & I am very interested to know more. I have never messed with magnets for healing, but know that some natural health experts use powerful magnets regularly. I have never tried such and was wondering what anyone thinks about my experience. Thanks - I had a thorasic MRI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.131.252 (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Restructure of page

As has been commented above this page reads like a textbook and not an encyclopaedia. I have attempted to organize the sections into a more logical order. I've also added near the beginning the clinical indications for MR - as this page is too heavily weighted towards physics than medicine.

Regarding the physics - there is a fine line between making it accessible and losing scientific accuracy. I have made the description of the physics aspect much more concise in all the sections that refer to Main Articles elsewhere on Wikipedia.

The Specialist Applications section is also is need of editing as this contains many research-oriented niche techniques that are not relevant to an encyclopedia.

threetesla 13:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doregan (talk • contribs)

PMRI

This article uses the acronym "PMRI". What is it? Is it the same as the "pMRI" mentioned in the "Brain and Ageing Research Program" article? --DavidCary (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

In the MRI article it stands for Prepolarised MRI. This is a scanner design which uses two resistive electromagnets and is cheaper than a supercooled electromagnet. The brain article refers to pMRI or perfusion MRI - using gadolinium contrast agents - to investigate cerebral perfusion. --Doregan (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Everybody wants to be the new fMRI, but are either of these acronyms actually used? I took a quick survey (n=1, i.e. myself), and no-one had heard of either pMRI or PMRI. I'm not specialised in either, but I do work in MR research. As this article is meant for the general reader, shouldn't we expand both to p... MRI for clarity? GyroMagician (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been an MRI researcher for a few months now and I haven't heard this acronym yet.--Taylornate (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not a widely used abbreviation. I have spelt it out, put the system in context and improved the references. Have also provided a reference for the cost of an MR scanner. --Doregan (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Genotoxic effects

A controversial article on genotoxic effects was published earlier last year and has recently been cited on this page (Impact of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging on human lymphocyte DNA integrity - Fiechter et al). This has been heavily criticized by several groups whose responses are on the European Heart Journal website. I have removed a statement implying that MR causes cancers at half the rate as that of CT - as this was not what any of the papers have said. The section on genotoxic effects is important but may need putting in greater context and reflect the considerable uncertainty of whether these effects are harmful or simply transient and of no significance.

--Doregan (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doregan - The sentence in question did not state that MR causes cancers at half the rate as that of CT, but I can see how it could have been interpreted as to imply that. So I accept that the part of the sentence that talks about cancer should be left out. However, the fact that CT and MRI each induce double-stranded breaks at comparable levels is extremely relevant to the topic of the section. As such, I'm about to add a quote from a paper by Knuuti et al. which acknowledges this point, as well as the uncertainty over whether these effects are of any clinical significance. (And yes, the Fiechter et al. study is controversial, but is certainly not the first or only study to document genotoxic effects associated with MRI, so I don't think it's unreasonable to include it.) Gzabers (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Painless?

The section on acoustic noise states: "As the switching is typically in the audible frequency range, the resulting vibration produces loud noises (clicking or beeping). This is most marked with high-field machines[68] and rapid-imaging techniques in which sound pressure levels can reach 120 dB(A) (equivalent to a jet engine at take-off),[69] and therefore appropriate ear protection is essential for anyone inside the MRI scanner room during the examination.[70]"

The section on claustrophobia and discomfort states: "Despite being painless,"

These contradict one another. 120 db is far above the pain threshold. 120 db is far more than enough to incapacitate some of us, even with ear protection and distance. 96.231.17.143 (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

From practical experience, without hearing protection, walking around an MR machine playing out a loud sequence is similar to walking past a pneumatic drill on the street. You wouldn't want to stand there and listen, but it's not actually painful (for a short time).

120 dB is loud, but it's on the bottom end of the pain threshold (e.g. Threshold_of_pain#In_hearing). But nobody in their right mind would lie in a scanner, or let somebody lie there for them, without hearing protection. It's common to use both earplugs and ear-defenders. This reduces the sound level enough that it's easily tolerable for over an hour.

Modern machines are getting quieter, to the point where earplugs alone offer enough protection, although there are still plenty of older machines still in operation (especially in research).

Does that help? GyroMagician (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Diagnosing psychological disorders using MRI

Hey guys! This page was very informative but I just had one suggestion. Psychology is a very important branch of science studied today. The section titled, "Neuroimaging", does not mention using the MRI to diagnose psychological disorders. I believe it is a crucial part of the neuroimaging function of MRI. I inserted a sentence about psychology and MRI.

Neuroimaging

Main article: MRI of brain and brain stem

MRI image of white matter tracts.

MRI is the investigative tool of choice for neurological cancers as it is more sensitive than CT for small tumors and offers better visualization of the posterior fossa. The contrast provided between grey and white matter makes it the optimal choice for many conditions of the central nervous system including demyelinating diseases, dementia, cerebrovascular disease, infectious diseases and epilepsy. Since many images are taken milliseconds apart, it shows how the brain responds to different stimuli; researchers can then study both the functional and structural brain abnormalities in order to diagnose most psychological disorders. MRI is also used in MRI-guided stereotactic surgery and radiosurgery for treatment of intracranial tumors, arteriovenous malformations and other surgically treatable conditions using a device known as the N-localizer. GabyMartell (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Magnetic resonance imaging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130117002532/http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=35149&noSaveAs=0&Rendition=WEB to http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=35149&noSaveAs=0&Rendition=WEB

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Consistency and Rewriting "History"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Mills_Purcell

"Edward Mills Purcell (August 30, 1912 – March 7, 1997) was an American physicist who shared the 1952 Nobel Prize for Physics for his independent discovery (published 1946) of nuclear magnetic resonance in liquids and in solids"

This information is notable for its exclusion from this article. Magnetic Resonance imaging technology had a history prior to its use in medical diagnostic imaging which included the award of an earlier Nobel Prize in physics Danshawen (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)danshawen

Lead paragraph

Someone (u:Lowoxygen) added a fair amount of content to the lead, repeatedly and somewhat incorrectly referencing the Boltzmann distribution for alpha and beta spin states in the Pauli formalism, that is taught in first-year undergraduate chemistry classes, among other extraneous and half-correct information. As is, the 'direction of the spins'... really it's the angle of precession. I'm not sure if it is best to have a primer on the physics of MRI in the lead, beyond 'radio waves and magnetic fields', but if that information is presented, it should at least be closer to accuracy. I will work on it myself when I get some time. I just wanted to give a heads-up here first. -137.53.91.235 (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Fully agree with the above - just came to this article for the first time and the second paragraph does not give a encyclopaedic description 94.7.245.51 (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've revised it again, breaking from the general format of the 2nd lead paragraph as it stood at the beginning of this year. I think it's an improvement and if there are no objections in a few weeks I will possibly remove the good introductory style notice on the top of the article. Thanks. -137.53.91.235 (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

what does it do

its cool — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.168.179 (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Magnetic resonance imaging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130115221811/http://icmic.rad.jhmi.edu/icmicpersonnel/BIOBottomleyP.pdf to http://icmic.rad.jhmi.edu/icmicpersonnel/BIOBottomleyP.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

MRI of an extraskeletal Chondroma

It's a fairly rare condition and I uploaded a picture of it here :

Chondroma of the soft parts located in the little toe.

If someone wants to use it somewhere in this article go ahead. Bratgoul (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Magnetic resonance imaging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.emrf.org/FAQs%20MRI%20History.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111120221919/http://benbeck.co.uk/firsts/scanning.htm to http://benbeck.co.uk/firsts/scanning.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120624075449/http://choosingwisely.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/5things_12_factsheet_Amer_College_Phys.pdf to http://choosingwisely.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/5things_12_factsheet_Amer_College_Phys.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magnetic resonance imaging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120103150438/http://www.sri.com/policy/csted/reports/techin/mri3.html to http://www.sri.com/policy/csted/reports/techin/mri3.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/object_jun00.html?c=y&page=2
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cpl.uh.edu/files/publications/conf_paper_videos/c66.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Magnetic resonance imaging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150204205155/http://patientsafetyauthority.org/ADVISORIES/AdvisoryLibrary/2009/Jun6%282%29/Pages/56.aspx to http://patientsafetyauthority.org/ADVISORIES/AdvisoryLibrary/2009/Jun6%282%29/Pages/56.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130615033507/http://www.eradimaging.com/site/article.cfm?ID=426 to http://www.eradimaging.com/site/article.cfm?ID=426
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.goingfora.com/radiology/mri.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305000107/http://www.med.harvard.edu/aanlib/basicsMR.html to http://www.med.harvard.edu/aanlib/basicsMR.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160927072051/http://kgov.com/broadcast/stream/4772/lo to http://kgov.com/broadcast/stream/4772/lo
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203002732/http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1011/hc08/0822/0822.pdf to http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1011/hc08/0822/0822.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Construction

On reading the article on MRI, I could not find a description of the machine that produces MRI. It was my interest in the machine that led me to look up MRI in the first place and I was disappointed that the machine was not described. Roger Fullerton Email:182.239.128.37 (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)rogerfullerton@ozemail.com.au

I've now introduced the construction of the camera. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Not only medical

A scientific journal on the subject says: Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is the first international multidisciplinary journal encompassing physical, life, and clinical science investigations as they relate to the development and use of magnetic resonance imaging. This article is not right in stating in the first sentence that this is exclusively a medical phenomenon. This is not the first time this problem is pointed out in this talk page. --Ettrig (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I made a change corresponding my comment above and got this response]. It feels like a rather important loose end. So, the current article does not cover the full subject BUT (?) a GA review is ongoing. If the article is found to be near GA quality except for this problem, I suggest that it is moved to an article name that corresponds to the content, something like MRI in medicine". --Ettrig (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I already suggested that as an option in my GA review comments. We'll discuss what to do about it there, if that's all right with you, to avoid running multiple threads: I'm currently awaiting nom's response. Personally I think the title should be "Clinical magnetic resonance imaging" which seems to capture the article's intent, as I've stated in the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

It's true that there are non-medical usages, but the entire current content is medical, so the title needs to reflect this. If you want to mention non-medical use, you can still add it to the article. With the absence of an Industrial magnetic resonance imaging, the mentioning of "medical" or "clinical" in the title is completely redundant. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Nuclear magnetic resonance#Applications is for that purpose. I've mentioned non-medical uses in the article now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear. Mikael Häggström, could you read the discussion we (not including you) had during the GAN? We agreed that the article was overwhelmingly about the clinical side, with somewhere between nothing and totally inadequate on the other applications, so focused the article, and on that basis it got through GA. With its current title, it would not have obtained a GA as the coverage of non-clinical applications is not good enough. There are two options. 1) Return the article's title to "Clinical MRA" (leaving it as a GA) and write a broader article on the other applications with a "main" link and short summary of Clinical MRA in one section; 2) Substantially extend (i.e., write afresh, frankly) the non-clinical sections to form approximately 50% of the article. One might wonder whether, in that case, the article should not go through GAR and then GAN again when ready as it is not tailored for that meaning at all. I'd suggest option (1) made a lot more sense, but both routes are available. But I've had enough of the shenanigans. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I definitely support option 2) but I doubt non-medical sections need to be 50% of the article. "Magnetic resonance imaging" is definitely the WP:COMMONNAME. This issue is not about the article title, but about article content. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Would strongly agree with Mikael Häggström, MRI as used is the overwhelmingly common usage. NMR seems to cover non-medical applications or could more appropriately link to them. or, Imo the other applications need not take up as much space as is argued.--Iztwoz (talk) 09:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Also much clearer references need to be supplied to further the info on non-medical use - the one given by Ettrig is paywalled and seems to relate to any life science area (which could be more easily included in page). The other ref used in later section is not at all clear just a couple of loose usages of MRI amongst a host of NMR usages. --Iztwoz (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

i agree with Ettrig the article seems to make no mention of the psychology/neuroscience reaserch uses of mri. do you know how many reaserch papers have been written inthese fields as well as other humanities fields (sociology, anthropology, ect.) ? not one of these fields are even mentioned.

another concern i have is the lack of a section on MRI techniques, like FMRI ( "mri video" ) and DTI (used mainly to image white matter in the brain)