4 ms·

I'm a radiologist and very sceptic about low-field MRI + ML actually replacing normal high-field MRI for standard diagnostic purposes. But in a emergency setti

I'm a radiologist and very sceptic about low-field MRI + ML actually replacing normal high-field MRI for standard diagnostic purposes. But in a emergency setting or especially for MRI-guided interventions these low-field MRIs can really play a significant role. Combining these low-field MRIs with rapid imaging techniques makes me really excited about what interventional techniques become possible.

sitkack 2y ago
There is an opinion piece in the same issue that agrees with you. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp0670 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp0670 > This machine costs a fraction of current clinical scanners, is safer, and needs no costly infrastructure to run (2). Although low-field machines are not capable of yielding images that are as detailed as those from high-field clinical machines, the relatively low manufacturing and operational costs offer a potential revolution in MRI technology as a point-of-care screening tool. I don't think this machine is being billed as replacement to high-field machines.
- xattt 2y ago
  > I don't think this machine is being billed as replacement to high-field machines. Countries where health regulation is less developed are likely to see misrepresentation where this form of MRI will be equated to full-field MRI by snake oil salesmen.
  - nullc 2y ago
    The US government bought divining rods to detect IED's in Iraq. Dumb stuff happens, but we achieve so much in spite of it.
    - ahaferburg 2y ago
      You mean this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 If you did, the US government didn't buy those, but Iraq did.
bagels 2y ago
What is it about lower fields that means you cannot get a good image? Interference? Tissue movement in longer exposures? Why can't the device just integrate over a longer period of time?
- pbmonster 2y ago
  It's just the physical reality of nuclear magnetic resonance. SNR scales with B^(3/2), since the signal scales with B^2 and the noise scales with root B. This means going from 0.05T to 1.5T boosts your sensitivity ~150x. Measurement time scales with sensitivity^2, so you'd have to measure 20k x longer.

sitkack 2y ago

There is an opinion piece in the same issue that agrees with you. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp0670 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp0670 > This machine costs a fraction of current clinical scanners, is safer, and needs no costly infrastructure to run (2). Although low-field machines are not capable of yielding images that are as detailed as those from high-field clinical machines, the relatively low manufacturing and operational costs offer a potential revolution in MRI technology as a point-of-care screening tool. I don't think this machine is being billed as replacement to high-field machines.

xattt 2y ago
> I don't think this machine is being billed as replacement to high-field machines. Countries where health regulation is less developed are likely to see misrepresentation where this form of MRI will be equated to full-field MRI by snake oil salesmen.
- nullc 2y ago
  The US government bought divining rods to detect IED's in Iraq. Dumb stuff happens, but we achieve so much in spite of it.
  - ahaferburg 2y ago
    You mean this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 If you did, the US government didn't buy those, but Iraq did.

bagels 2y ago

What is it about lower fields that means you cannot get a good image? Interference? Tissue movement in longer exposures? Why can't the device just integrate over a longer period of time?

pbmonster 2y ago
It's just the physical reality of nuclear magnetic resonance. SNR scales with B^(3/2), since the signal scales with B^2 and the noise scales with root B. This means going from 0.05T to 1.5T boosts your sensitivity ~150x. Measurement time scales with sensitivity^2, so you'd have to measure 20k x longer.