Talk:Magnetic resonance imaging

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)

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Magnetic resonance imaging/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 12:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments

I'm happy to see that this article's progress towards GA status is being resumed; it is not at all far from arriving there. However, some issues remain unaddressed since 2017, as can be seen by comparing the open items in Talk:Magnetic resonance imaging/GA1 with the current state of the article.

In particular, there remain some "citation needed" tags from then, and some "page needed" tags which have also not been addressed in the intervening period; in addition, I've tagged an uncited paragraph in Angiography, and a claim in History, as also needing to be cited.

• @Chiswick Chap: added some references in the following, will work on the rest as well
  • Interventional MRI
  • Multinuclear imaging --Kostas20142 (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Good stuff. No need to ping me, I'm watching. You should format the new refs like the old ones. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Glad to see the uncited issues have been resolved.

• • resolved safety, added to Multinuclear imaging

Please observe indenting and leave space before the next item. Safety was not fully resolved; I've formatted its refs, see previous remark, and added mention of projectile risk, which was mentioned on the GA1 page. In short, far more care is still required.

I notice some items are now marked as needing update.

Can't find any more --Kostas20142 (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they've been fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• regarding Usage by organ or system, would you be ok if I modified it as " MRI affects diagnosis and treatment in many specialties although the effect on improved health outcomes is uncertain disputed in certain fields. ", citing the one that is used for the lower back pain and maybe finding one more? --Kostas20142 (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Should be fine, and yes, another example would be good. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Done the modification. Regarding the example, the one reference actually provides 2, but I can look for another as well.

That would be great.

"Non-medical use" still seems to me to be far too brief. In particular, something must be said about its use in biological research. For instance, Application of magnetic resonance imaging in zoology is a substantial area of application of MRI, leaving aside the protein-analysing capabilities of NMR which now seem to be out of scope given what is written in the lead, thankyou. You might also mention MRI in botany (whole plants). Perhaps you should also mention MRI in palaeontology (fossils).

Do you think that these applications should be within article's scope? --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes absolutely. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I added these, you may wish to take a look. there might be a few more (notably assessing quality of food intended for human consumption however I feel it starts getting a bit out of scope). --Kostas20142 (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

That's great.

"History" too seems very insubstantial, given the quite decent History of magnetic resonance imaging which has plenty of citations, images, and detail. A rather better summary of that article is required here.

On it --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The "Economics" section remains far too US-centric, and I mentioned back in 2017 that each price needs to be associated with a date, i.e. this cost $xxx in 2007 or whatever.

I cannot find any new reliable sources saying something in specific regarding MRI scanners cost _ however all provide a (relatively wide) range. would you like this to be added? --Kostas20142 (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Well if the problem's unfixable it would be better to remove the old, unbalanced material, probably the entire section.

For now removed the whole section --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks.

Also from 2017 (let's check these are now resolved): --- I'm not convinced, either, that one-sentence sections in By organ or system are satisfactory. Suggest a little detail for Cardiovascular and Musculoskeletal to make them worthwhile sections.

I have added sokmething a few weeks ago, but it might require more. --Kostas20142 (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks.

--- The sudden dive into extreme technicality in the "Overview table" in Sequences is a bit uncomfortable. The material is repeated from the main article, MRI sequences, which isn't the right way to handle a 'main' link. I suggest we remove the table and write a paragraph or two with one or two images only (the most clearly distinct, perhaps) to explain what the idea of sequences is all about, with the best secondary sources.

I am not really sure it is actually possible to resolve this; I think the whole concept is a bit too technical itself and so most of the sources are. I could ask for help at the relevant WikiProject page though. Otherwise, would completely ommiting it and adding a "see also" work? (not a big fan of it though)--Kostas20142 (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you can do that if all else fails. A link in the article body would be much better than a see also, however. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't really seem fixeable to me - I feel we either have to keep it as is or drop the table. But I actually think the table helps the reader get an idea. --Kostas20142 (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, let's assume it can stay for now.

--- The 'Other specialized configurations' is similarly far more technical than the rest of the article, and very long. If it's the case that these are rather specialized and rare techniques, then they might go in a subsidiary list article and be summarized here with a 'main' link and a brief paragraph or two. If they're really rather important then they had better stay but be explained without too much techspeak (a specially juicy one is "heteronuclear magnetization transfer MRI that would image the high-gyromagnetic-ratio hydrogen nucleus instead of the low-gyromagnetic-ratio nucleus that is bonded to the hydrogen atom" but there are plenty of others).

This item has not been resolved really, but if we're talking about reaching a basic standard then at least this article "covers the main points" and is fully cited, which is good progress.

maybe we could remove this section and add it at see also? --Kostas20142 (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that would make any sense - it would weaken the article, as molecular imaging is certainly a notable subtopic. Instead, we just need a citation for the first paragraph, surely not difficult. I've done that for you, it only took a moment to locate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Some help with this and only would be appreciated. But I ran a random check because something didn't fit, and it seems we have a clear-cut copyvio so it will require that the section is re-written. --Kostas20142 (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

--- These changes will dictate some rewriting of the lead section, which should simply and clearly summarize the text.

When all the above items are resolved, I will re-review the article to see if it 'works' as a piece in its new form. I will also need to do some verification and image checks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, this has taken a long time and progress has been slow; not all items have been actioned, and formatting leaves something to be desired. However, if we ask ourselves whether the core requirements of GA have been met, the answer is yes, it's fairly readable, not plagiarised, fully cited, illustrated, covers the main points and doesn't look a total disaster. I will therefore pass it now, but will note that GA nominators should make themselves reasonably available to fix reviewers' comments promptly. I do hope that you are pleased with the result and will take the time to review one or two articles from the ever-lengthening GAN queue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2020 (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)

References

"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)