User login
Recently, “low field” MRIs have been in the news, with the promise that they’ll be safer and easier. People can go in them with their cell phones, car keys in pockets, no ear plugs needed for the noise, etc. They’re cheaper to build and can be plugged into a standard outlet.
That’s all well and good, but what about accuracy and image quality?
That’s a big question. Even proponents of the technology say it’s not as good as what we see with 3T MRI, so they’re trying to compensate by using AI and other software protocols to enhance the pictures. Allegedly it looks good, but so far only healthy volunteers have been scanned. How will it do with a small low-grade glioma or other subtle (but important) findings? We don’t know yet.
Personally, I think having to give up your iPhone and car keys for an hour, and put in foam ear plugs, are small trade-offs to get an accurate diagnosis.
Of course, I’m also approaching this as someone who deals with brain imaging. Maybe for other structures, like a knee, that kind of detail isn’t as necessary (or maybe it is. I’m definitely not in that field).
So, as with so many things that make it into the popular press, they likely have potential, but are still not ready for prime time.
This sort of stuff always gets my office phones ringing. Patients see a blurb about it on the news or Facebook and assume it’s available now, so they want one. They seem to think the new MRI is like Bones McCoy’s tricorder. I take the scanner off my belt, wave it over them, and the answer comes up on the screen. The fact that the unit still weighs over a ton is hidden at the bottom of the blurb, if it’s even mentioned at all.
There’s also the likelihood that this sort of thing is going to be taken to the public, in the same way carotid Dopplers have been. Marketed to the worried well with celebrity endorsements and taglines like “see what your doctor won’t look for.” Of course, MRIs are chock full of things like nonspecific white matter changes, disc bulges, tiny meningiomas, and a host of other incidental findings that cause panic in cyberchondriacs. Who then call us.
But that’s another story.
I understand that for some parts of the world a comparatively inexpensive, transportable, MRI that requires less shielding and power is a HUGE deal. Its availability can make the difference between life and death.
I’m not knocking the technology. I’m sure it will be useful. But, like so much in medicine, it’s not here yet.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.
Recently, “low field” MRIs have been in the news, with the promise that they’ll be safer and easier. People can go in them with their cell phones, car keys in pockets, no ear plugs needed for the noise, etc. They’re cheaper to build and can be plugged into a standard outlet.
That’s all well and good, but what about accuracy and image quality?
That’s a big question. Even proponents of the technology say it’s not as good as what we see with 3T MRI, so they’re trying to compensate by using AI and other software protocols to enhance the pictures. Allegedly it looks good, but so far only healthy volunteers have been scanned. How will it do with a small low-grade glioma or other subtle (but important) findings? We don’t know yet.
Personally, I think having to give up your iPhone and car keys for an hour, and put in foam ear plugs, are small trade-offs to get an accurate diagnosis.
Of course, I’m also approaching this as someone who deals with brain imaging. Maybe for other structures, like a knee, that kind of detail isn’t as necessary (or maybe it is. I’m definitely not in that field).
So, as with so many things that make it into the popular press, they likely have potential, but are still not ready for prime time.
This sort of stuff always gets my office phones ringing. Patients see a blurb about it on the news or Facebook and assume it’s available now, so they want one. They seem to think the new MRI is like Bones McCoy’s tricorder. I take the scanner off my belt, wave it over them, and the answer comes up on the screen. The fact that the unit still weighs over a ton is hidden at the bottom of the blurb, if it’s even mentioned at all.
There’s also the likelihood that this sort of thing is going to be taken to the public, in the same way carotid Dopplers have been. Marketed to the worried well with celebrity endorsements and taglines like “see what your doctor won’t look for.” Of course, MRIs are chock full of things like nonspecific white matter changes, disc bulges, tiny meningiomas, and a host of other incidental findings that cause panic in cyberchondriacs. Who then call us.
But that’s another story.
I understand that for some parts of the world a comparatively inexpensive, transportable, MRI that requires less shielding and power is a HUGE deal. Its availability can make the difference between life and death.
I’m not knocking the technology. I’m sure it will be useful. But, like so much in medicine, it’s not here yet.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.
Recently, “low field” MRIs have been in the news, with the promise that they’ll be safer and easier. People can go in them with their cell phones, car keys in pockets, no ear plugs needed for the noise, etc. They’re cheaper to build and can be plugged into a standard outlet.
That’s all well and good, but what about accuracy and image quality?
That’s a big question. Even proponents of the technology say it’s not as good as what we see with 3T MRI, so they’re trying to compensate by using AI and other software protocols to enhance the pictures. Allegedly it looks good, but so far only healthy volunteers have been scanned. How will it do with a small low-grade glioma or other subtle (but important) findings? We don’t know yet.
Personally, I think having to give up your iPhone and car keys for an hour, and put in foam ear plugs, are small trade-offs to get an accurate diagnosis.
Of course, I’m also approaching this as someone who deals with brain imaging. Maybe for other structures, like a knee, that kind of detail isn’t as necessary (or maybe it is. I’m definitely not in that field).
So, as with so many things that make it into the popular press, they likely have potential, but are still not ready for prime time.
This sort of stuff always gets my office phones ringing. Patients see a blurb about it on the news or Facebook and assume it’s available now, so they want one. They seem to think the new MRI is like Bones McCoy’s tricorder. I take the scanner off my belt, wave it over them, and the answer comes up on the screen. The fact that the unit still weighs over a ton is hidden at the bottom of the blurb, if it’s even mentioned at all.
There’s also the likelihood that this sort of thing is going to be taken to the public, in the same way carotid Dopplers have been. Marketed to the worried well with celebrity endorsements and taglines like “see what your doctor won’t look for.” Of course, MRIs are chock full of things like nonspecific white matter changes, disc bulges, tiny meningiomas, and a host of other incidental findings that cause panic in cyberchondriacs. Who then call us.
But that’s another story.
I understand that for some parts of the world a comparatively inexpensive, transportable, MRI that requires less shielding and power is a HUGE deal. Its availability can make the difference between life and death.
I’m not knocking the technology. I’m sure it will be useful. But, like so much in medicine, it’s not here yet.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.
<!--$RCSfile: InCopy_agile.xsl,v $ $Revision: 1.35 $-->
<!--$RCSfile: drupal.xsl,v $ $Revision: 1.7 $-->
<root generator="drupal.xsl" gversion="1.7"> <header> <fileName>168301</fileName> <TBEID>0C0506B1.SIG</TBEID> <TBUniqueIdentifier>MD_0C0506B1</TBUniqueIdentifier> <newsOrJournal>News</newsOrJournal> <publisherName>Frontline Medical Communications</publisherName> <storyname>HItting a Nerve: MRIs</storyname> <articleType>353</articleType> <TBLocation>QC Done-All Pubs</TBLocation> <QCDate>20240604T161421</QCDate> <firstPublished>20240604T161947</firstPublished> <LastPublished>20240604T161947</LastPublished> <pubStatus qcode="stat:"/> <embargoDate/> <killDate/> <CMSDate>20240604T161947</CMSDate> <articleSource/> <facebookInfo/> <meetingNumber/> <byline>Allan M Block</byline> <bylineText>ALLAN M. BLOCK, MD</bylineText> <bylineFull>ALLAN M. BLOCK, MD</bylineFull> <bylineTitleText/> <USOrGlobal/> <wireDocType/> <newsDocType>Column</newsDocType> <journalDocType/> <linkLabel/> <pageRange/> <citation/> <quizID/> <indexIssueDate/> <itemClass qcode="ninat:text"/> <provider qcode="provider:imng"> <name>IMNG Medical Media</name> <rightsInfo> <copyrightHolder> <name>Frontline Medical News</name> </copyrightHolder> <copyrightNotice>Copyright (c) 2015 Frontline Medical News, a Frontline Medical Communications Inc. company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, copied, or otherwise reproduced or distributed without the prior written permission of Frontline Medical Communications Inc.</copyrightNotice> </rightsInfo> </provider> <abstract/> <metaDescription>Low-field MRIs are new and perhaps noteworthy. They may have potential, but they are still not ready for prime time.</metaDescription> <articlePDF/> <teaserImage>170246</teaserImage> <teaser> <span class="tag metaDescription">Low-field MRIs are new and perhaps noteworthy. They may have potential, but they are still not ready for prime time.</span> </teaser> <title>Low-Field MRIs</title> <deck/> <disclaimer/> <AuthorList/> <articleURL/> <doi/> <pubMedID/> <publishXMLStatus/> <publishXMLVersion>1</publishXMLVersion> <useEISSN>0</useEISSN> <urgency/> <pubPubdateYear>2024</pubPubdateYear> <pubPubdateMonth/> <pubPubdateDay/> <pubVolume/> <pubNumber/> <wireChannels/> <primaryCMSID/> <CMSIDs/> <keywords/> <seeAlsos/> <publications_g> <publicationData> <publicationCode>nr</publicationCode> <pubIssueName>January 2021</pubIssueName> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> <journalTitle>Neurology Reviews</journalTitle> <journalFullTitle>Neurology Reviews</journalFullTitle> <copyrightStatement>2018 Frontline Medical Communications Inc.,</copyrightStatement> </publicationData> </publications_g> <publications> <term canonical="true">22</term> </publications> <sections> <term canonical="true">78</term> <term>39313</term> </sections> <topics> <term canonical="true">38029</term> </topics> <links> <link> <itemClass qcode="ninat:picture"/> <altRep contenttype="image/jpeg">images/24005f83.jpg</altRep> <description role="drol:caption">Dr. Allan M. Block</description> <description role="drol:credit"/> </link> </links> </header> <itemSet> <newsItem> <itemMeta> <itemRole>Main</itemRole> <itemClass>text</itemClass> <title>Low-Field MRIs</title> <deck/> </itemMeta> <itemContent> <p>Recently, “low field” MRIs have been in the news, with the promise that they’ll be safer and easier. People can go in them with their cell phones, car keys in pockets, no ear plugs needed for the noise, etc. They’re cheaper to build and can be plugged into a standard outlet.</p> <p>That’s all well and good, but what about accuracy and image quality?<br/><br/>[[{"fid":"170246","view_mode":"medstat_image_flush_left","fields":{"format":"medstat_image_flush_left","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"Dr. Allan M. Block, a neurologist in Scottsdale, Arizona.","field_file_image_credit[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_caption[und][0][value]":"Dr. Allan M. Block"},"type":"media","attributes":{"class":"media-element file-medstat_image_flush_left"}}]]That’s a big question. Even proponents of the technology say it’s not as good as what we see with 3T MRI, so they’re trying to compensate by using AI and other software protocols to enhance the pictures. Allegedly it looks good, but so far only healthy volunteers have been scanned. How will it do with a small low-grade glioma or other subtle (but important) findings? We don’t know yet.<br/><br/>Personally, I think having to give up your iPhone and car keys for an hour, and put in foam ear plugs, are small trade-offs to get an accurate diagnosis.<br/><br/>Of course, I’m also approaching this as someone who deals with brain imaging. Maybe for other structures, like a knee, that kind of detail isn’t as necessary (or maybe it is. I’m definitely not in that field).<br/><br/>So, as with so many things that make it into the popular press, they likely have potential, but are still not ready for prime time.<br/><br/>This sort of stuff always gets my office phones ringing. Patients see a blurb about it on the news or Facebook and assume it’s available now, so they want one. They seem to think the new MRI is like Bones McCoy’s tricorder. I take the scanner off my belt, wave it over them, and the answer comes up on the screen. The fact that the unit still weighs over a ton is hidden at the bottom of the blurb, if it’s even mentioned at all.<br/><br/>There’s also the likelihood that this sort of thing is going to be taken to the public, in the same way carotid Dopplers have been. Marketed to the worried well with celebrity endorsements and taglines like “see what your doctor won’t look for.” Of course, MRIs are chock full of things like nonspecific white matter changes, disc bulges, tiny meningiomas, and a host of other incidental findings that cause panic in cyberchondriacs. Who then call us.<br/><br/>But that’s another story.<br/><br/>I understand that for some parts of the world a comparatively inexpensive, transportable, MRI that requires less shielding and power is a HUGE deal. Its availability can make the difference between life and death.<br/><br/>I’m not knocking the technology. I’m sure it will be useful. But, like so much in medicine, it’s not here yet.<br/><br/></p> <p> <em>Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona. </em> </p> </itemContent> </newsItem> <newsItem> <itemMeta> <itemRole>teaser</itemRole> <itemClass>text</itemClass> <title/> <deck/> </itemMeta> <itemContent> </itemContent> </newsItem> </itemSet></root>
