That's pretty unlikely IMO. Physicians are remarkably pragmatic. Diagnostic imaging tools like CT and MRI were created in order to avoid the risk of explorato

That's pretty unlikely IMO. Physicians are remarkably pragmatic. Diagnostic imaging tools like CT and MRI were created in order to avoid the risk of exploratory surgery. As a byproduct, they are also useful in medical research applications like these. From the article: > “We hope that this will help to reduce stigma that ADHD is ‘just a label’ for difficult children or caused by poor parenting." In general, diagnostic imaging is funded to mitigate some other downstream risk. "Would the wrong treatment be harmful?" [not in this case, popular treatment is pharmeceutical - psychostimulants, pretty safe drugs]. "Would delaying diagnosis of a non-ADHD disease be harmful?" [not likely given the symptoms]. If you had an extraordinary case ("Patient is allergic to psychostimulants and alternative treatment X is expensive or risky"), this research might be used to convince the relevant parties that an MRI to rule-out ADHD is worthwhile.