"Spectacularly Unreliable MRI 'Results'" [article]
Quote:Spectacularly unreliable MRI “results”
The results of this late 2016 study (Herzog et al) blew my mind more than anything else I’ve read recently.
I already knew MRI is misleading—everyone knows that if they know anything about medical imaging and back pain. But it may be worse than I thought…
If you send the same patient to get ten different MRIs, interpreted by ten different radiologists from different facilities, apparently you get ten markedly different explanations for her symptoms. A brave 63-year-old volunteer with sciatica allowed herself to be scanned again and again and again for science. The radiologists — who did not know they were getting the “secret shopper” treatment — cooked up forty-nine distinct “findings.” Sixteen were unique; not one was found in all ten reports, and only one was found in nine of the ten. On average, each radiologist made about a dozen errors, seeing one or two things that weren’t there about missing about ten things that were.
That’s a lot of errors, and not a lot of reliability. The authors clearly believe that some MRI providers are better than others, and that’s probably true, but we also need to ask the question: is any MRI actually reliable?
I’ve seen some startling examples of imaging shenanigans personally, like that one time a radiologist missed literal loose screws — two of them — embedded in my wife’s back. I found them myself.
And I’ve heard of many more. I’m not blaming radiologists (I think), because detecting clinically significant things with magic machines is a super hard problem to solve (signal detection theory and all that). But Jebus! For all my cynicism, what Herzog et al found was way worse than I would have predicted. Clearly we need to take all MRI “results” with a brick-sized grain of salt.
As proof of psychopathic brains?
Or, is it more a (grey) matter of the radiologists?
University techs/profs would surely do better, right?
WE are to trust The MDs then, aye? /snarkasm
Unless it is indeed the tech/science/(theory) itself?
(i dunno; just askin', aye Socrateaze?)
What is the difference between MRI and FMRI? Let’s compare them by their application, the specifics of processes captured and in terms of how often both procedures are used in modern medicine.
- MRI is designed for revealing the peculiarities of anatomical structure inside a human organism, including those in the human brain. On the other hand, FMRI maps the image via measuring the blood flow levels in the human brain. The data captured with the FMRI shows changes in the metabolic functioning in the brain.
- Due to the different ways of measuring processes in the human brain, MRI and FMRI differ in terms of the resulting picture. MRI measures the molecule called hydrogen nuclei. The captured data allows MRI to create a spatial image of the finest resolution of the human brain. FMRI measures oxygen levels flowing into the brain and calculates the differences in tissue with respect to time.
- MRI technique has established a solid reputation in modern medicine. It is widely used in various fields of medicine as well as in medical studies. FMRI, on the other hand, is a relatively recent technique and is only beginning to gain popularity.
Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]