Talk:Magnetic resonance imaging

How to cover multiparametric MRI

Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) seems widely used to diagnose/characterise prostate cancer,[1] and is being used experimentally for diagnosing clear-cell renal cancer. Is there a standard mpMRI or a variety ? - Rod57 (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I've now introduced this term in the intro of MRI sequence. Its broadest sense would include any sequence combination. Thus, every included sequence in the particular study should be mentioned when describing for example sensitivity and specificity of the method. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

MRI Inventor

I am not sure why the discussion on MRI does not mention anything about its inventor Dr. Raymond Damadian.

If you have well-sourced info that Raymond Damadian invented the MRI (or a specific type or something), add it to the article. Note: it's recommended to sign your talk posts with four tildes ("~"). IAmNitpicking (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

D'accord, please sign your post (WP:SIG). According to Lancet: "Damadian, who had become well known for his attempts to seek credit for the technology, demanded that he share the Nobel Prize; Lauterbur refused to discuss Damadian then, and even as early as 1992, when Kevles interviewed him for her book." If this helps the discussion. 17387349L8764 (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you think the initiator of this thread was Damadian himself? IAmNitpicking (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

MRI is a contribution of various scientist and mathematics. So, crediting one particular scientist for it seems to be somewhat odd. _{دَستخَط،} اِفلاق ^{(کَتھ باتھ)} 08:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Not crediting Raymond at all seems extremely odd 2603:6011:9600:52C0:FC2A:8A28:F293:758 (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

"MRI may still be seen as a better choice than a CT scan"

"While the hazards of ionizing radiation are now well controlled in most medical contexts, an MRI may still be seen as a better choice than a CT scan."

That is a very reductionist view and depends very much on the setting. The way it is written here (in the introduction, possibly read by thousands of patients before getting medical imaging) it conveys a general superiority of MRI over CT, which does not hold true. It's like saying "While the hazards of a sharp blade are well controlled in most food-related contexts, a spoon may still be seen as a better choice than a knife." MRI is simply another tool with a different set of appropriate application scenarios. ~A Radiologist

Agreed - it is also unsourced and I have removed it. CV9933 (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Two history sections?

It would be better if either section was removed or both combined. Especially since the first section is too short. 2001:8003:B027:ED00:C53C:BFB0:A078:1BE0 (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes the history of mri is sufficient enough to have it's own article so we don't need two history sections here. CV9933 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Mechanism paragraph confusing

In the section on mechanism, it says:

To perform a study, the person is positioned within an MRI scanner that forms a strong magnetic field around the area to be imaged. First, energy from an oscillating magnetic field is temporarily applied to the patient at the appropriate resonance frequency. Scanning with X and Y gradient coils causes a selected region of the patient to experience the exact magnetic field required for the energy to be absorbed. The atoms are excited by a RF pulse and the resultant signal is measured by a receiving coil.

Is the part "First, energy from an oscillating magnetic is applied" referring to "a RF pulse" mentioned later, or are they separate? This should be made clearer. Also, this paragraph doesn't make clear the importance of relaxation times. Further, it's unclear what X and Y are referring to here. AxelBoldt (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)