4 ms·
Is that really the way to make the MRI faster? It seems like a time and motion problem. You lie in the machine for a long time but there's a lot of slack; the a
by shereadsthenews 8y ago
Is that really the way to make the MRI faster? It seems like a time and motion problem. You lie in the machine for a long time but there's a lot of slack; the actual image process takes up barely any of the time. Remainder of time is spent waiting for things to whiz around and for the tech to click "next" on their console.
- krapht 8y agoThat's the problem, current MRI's are like taking high-def pictures in raw format 1 pixel at a time. There's loads of redundant information in the raw image encoding. If there was some way to only image the information we needed, the process could go faster. Adding more "cameras" to our MRI so we can do parallel imaging is expensive.
- skwb 8y agoDepends on what you're trying to image. Tbh, if it takes 15 mins vs 30 mins to get an image of your knee, it's maybe not really that much of a game changer. From the perspective of a MRI purchaser (say clinic or hospital director), maybe you can squeeze 1 or 2 more cases in a day, but it seems like a marginal improvement overall. I think cardiac is clearly the exception where you bring on board potentially new functionality with quicker acquisition.