4 ms·

Every MRI scan is primed with information. "grandma is forgetful", "billy fell off the roof" But if MRIs were that subjective, they would not have the success

Every MRI scan is primed with information. "grandma is forgetful", "billy fell off the roof" But if MRIs were that subjective, they would not have the success rate they do. It is more reasonable to assume something happen to the embassy staff than that MRIs are as bogus as lie detectors.

perseusprime11 8y ago
Also, every brain is abnormal in some way. This and priming together caused the doctors to conclude wrongly. It's like therapy, garbage in and garbage out.
aylmao 8y ago
Straight from the report > MRI neuroimaging was obtained in all 21 patients. Most patients had conventional imaging findings, which were within normal limits, at most showing a few small nonspecific T2-bright foci in the white matter (n =9, 43%). This sounds to me like the MRI showed most people were normal. It continues: > There were 3 patients with multiple T2-bright white matter foci, which were more than expected for age, 2 mild in degree, and 1 with moderate changes. Three out of 21 patients doesn't sound like a lot. The researches agree that 3 people showing something somewhat unexpected isn't significant, and it's probably due to other diseases or conditions: > The pattern of conventional imaging findings in these cases was nonspecific with regard to the exposure/insult experienced, and the findings could perhaps be attributed to other preexisting disease processes or risk factors. Advanced structural and functional neuroimaging studies are ongoing. So it's not that "MRIs are subjective" or "are as bogus as lie detectors". Rather, it's the people forming an interpretation of what the results mean (especially those who are not experts, as we can see that the experts agreed only three of the 21 people examined show something, and it's probably unrelated). [1]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673168 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673168
rasz 8y ago
nothing wrong with MRI indeed https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/ignobel-prize-in-neuroscience-the-dead-salmon-study/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/ignobe...
- TomMckenny 8y ago
  That article points out the importance of statistical correction not innate problems with MRI. From the article: >Some people like to use the salmon study as proof that fMRI is woo, but this isn't the case, it's actually a study to show the importance of correcting your stats. It further points out the by 2012 90% of labs were using the corrected techniques.

perseusprime11 8y ago

Also, every brain is abnormal in some way. This and priming together caused the doctors to conclude wrongly. It's like therapy, garbage in and garbage out.

aylmao 8y ago

Straight from the report > MRI neuroimaging was obtained in all 21 patients. Most patients had conventional imaging findings, which were within normal limits, at most showing a few small nonspecific T2-bright foci in the white matter (n =9, 43%). This sounds to me like the MRI showed most people were normal. It continues: > There were 3 patients with multiple T2-bright white matter foci, which were more than expected for age, 2 mild in degree, and 1 with moderate changes. Three out of 21 patients doesn't sound like a lot. The researches agree that 3 people showing something somewhat unexpected isn't significant, and it's probably due to other diseases or conditions: > The pattern of conventional imaging findings in these cases was nonspecific with regard to the exposure/insult experienced, and the findings could perhaps be attributed to other preexisting disease processes or risk factors. Advanced structural and functional neuroimaging studies are ongoing. So it's not that "MRIs are subjective" or "are as bogus as lie detectors". Rather, it's the people forming an interpretation of what the results mean (especially those who are not experts, as we can see that the experts agreed only three of the 21 people examined show something, and it's probably unrelated). [1]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673168 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673168

rasz 8y ago

nothing wrong with MRI indeed https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/ignobel-prize-in-neuroscience-the-dead-salmon-study/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/ignobe...

TomMckenny 8y ago
That article points out the importance of statistical correction not innate problems with MRI. From the article: >Some people like to use the salmon study as proof that fMRI is woo, but this isn't the case, it's actually a study to show the importance of correcting your stats. It further points out the by 2012 90% of labs were using the corrected techniques.