Slashdot Mirror


First Image Taken With an Ultra Low Field MRI

KentuckyFC writes "MRI machines are about to get smaller, much smaller. Most of their bulk is taken up by the huge superconducting magnets required to generate fields of a few Teslas. Now a team at the Los Alamos National Lab in New Mexico has built a machine that can produce images using a field of only a few microTesla (PDF, abstract here). So giant superconducting magnets aren't necessary, a development that has the potential to make MRI machines much smaller, perhaps even suitcase-sized. The one-page paper shows sections of the first 3D brain image taken with the device."

189 comments

  1. Hidden monkeys by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 4, Informative

    I thought the images were of monkeys at first, however when I went to have a look at MRI images of a human head was thankfully proven wrong (some of us have our monkey origins hidden better than others).

    So, for comparison here is a page with images of human heads in a normal MRI.
    (single image here)

    I hope they get the focusing better (which is what I understand the power is used for) because this will be a good progression.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:Hidden monkeys by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    2. Re:Hidden monkeys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope they get the focusing better (which is what I understand the power is used for) because this will be a good progression.

      Having cheap and portable MRIs with poor focus is still astronomically better than only having the expensive bulky MRIs. It could potentially mean that every doctor's office, even in poorer regions, could make an assessment with an MRI, improving the speed and accuracy of diagnosis.

      If resolution is needed to decipher something, then you ship the person to a hospital to get an MRI in one of the large machines.
  2. We have determined that your brain configuration by gl12 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    predisposes you to rebellion, expectation of civil rights and/or revolutionary ideals. Please report to a "freedom center" nearest you immediately. Have a good day and God bless.

  3. Oy! My payments... by Bayoudegradeable · · Score: 0, Redundant

    And to think I've got to an old-fashioned MRI this week. I can assure you that all the investments in recent big machines will be paid for before the imaging companies switch over to the new smaller units. Of course, they'll just jack the fees even higher to pay for the new machines when they roll out. I can't imagine how much they'll bend us over for MRIs now.

    --
    Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
    1. Re:Oy! My payments... by kmac06 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well you could always go back to the 19th century and avoid hospitals if you don't like modern medical advances (which are quite expensive).

    2. Re:Oy! My payments... by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or you could have a sensible health care system where the rich can have giant breasts and the poor don't die from common and curable things.

      You know, just a thought.

      --
      I like muppets.
    3. Re:Oy! My payments... by guruevi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I work at one of those MRI places and we do research and we are a non-profit. Although we're quite fully booked every day the use of the MRI still cost ~$500/hour. Basically the cost of operation divided by the number of scans done last year makes the price. Or do you think supercooling magnets to ~5K (that's Kelvin, convert to Celsius or Fahrenheit yourself) 24/7, the machine itself (~$3m) and support contract (~$125k) are paid for by the government not talking about the workstations to process the data and of course, my daily food?

      About the article: those pictures are pretty unclear but it's promising.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    4. Re:Oy! My payments... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So how is it possible, as another poster claims, for a $3000 MRI to cost $50 in India? Do the machines cost only $50,000 there instead of $3M, support contracts $2K instead of $125K, electricity 60 times cheaper, etc.? Something doesn't, as they say, "add up".

    5. Re:Oy! My payments... by puck01 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe the post you are referring to mentioned a CT scan, not an MRI. While both are imaging techniques, they are quite different in how they work. MRIs are much, much more expensive in general. They require the supercooled magnets and such. A CT is essentially using the same type of radiation as in used in a normal X-RAY to get sliced images. CTs are much faster at acquiring images and the equipment is much cheaper than an MRI. Both of the factors make it much less expensive overall.

    6. Re:Oy! My payments... by squarooticus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or you could have a sensible health care system where the rich can have giant breasts and the poor don't die from common and curable things.

      When you can figure out how to do that without holding a gun to my head to force me to pay for it, I'll back you 100%.

      --
      [ home ]
    7. Re:Oy! My payments... by voxel · · Score: 1

      Or he can hold a gun to your head, and then you'll be backing him 100%.

      --
      Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes
  4. Article's title is misleading by IvyKing · · Score: 3, Informative
    This may be the first image of a human head with an ultra low field MRI, but ULF MRI images have been made for at least a decade and a half. Magritek, a New Zealand company, makes a low cost unit ULF MRI system, though the image volume is limited to about one liter.


    Another company, Vista Clara, is using a novel form of ULF MRI to map groundwater.

    1. Re:Article's title is misleading by kanweg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Should be big enough for early creationists.

      Bert

    2. Re:Article's title is misleading by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Informative

      The summary is VERY incorrect.

      This isn't an ultra low field MRI, it's a DUAL field MRI. In a normal scanner you have a big, static magnetic field that polarizes the sample and remains for readout. In one of these dual field scanners you use the big field (or a bigger field, it's usually a resistive electromagnet so it can't be anywhere near as strong as a superconductor) to polarize the sample then you shut it off and use a much smaller field for readout. There are a few advantages, the one the abstract focuses on is that you can do things like MEG in a very low field. The other is that energy deposition is related to the field strength so by using a small field you can use imaging sequences that would otherwise pump too much energy into the subject.

      One of the guys working on this technology visited my lab last year. It was a very interesting presentation.

      I believe someone has produced an MR image using the Earth's magnetic field. They've certainly done nMR in the Earth's field. You can't get much lower than that on this planet.

    3. Re:Article's title is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Earth's field and low field MRI are actually relatively common. There has even been NMR work done at ~1uT in a shielded chamber.

    4. Re:Article's title is misleading by tkavanaugh · · Score: 1

      this post is exactly why i read slashdot

  5. Stronger pre-polarizatin field is used by flyingfsck · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hmm, they use a prepolarization field of 30 mT for 1 second before using the weaker measurement field of 46 uT. So I'm wondering why they don't just use the 30 mT field and be done with it.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Stronger pre-polarizatin field is used by IvyKing · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Larmour frequency for 30 mT is about 1.28 MHz, which is in the AM broadcast band. Interference is likely to be a significant problem.

    2. Re:Stronger pre-polarizatin field is used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The resistive magnet they use to generate the 30 mT would heat up too much and consume too much power if it operates at a higher duty cycle. I'm sure there are other technical reasons behind this, such as shimming (the 30 mT is probably not very well shimmed).

    3. Re:Stronger pre-polarizatin field is used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Image quality (specifically, resolution/distortion) is related to the homogeneity of the static field. The earth's field is very homogeneous and can therefore yield a high quality image. The pre-polarizing field does not have to be homogeneous as it is not on when the image is read out, but gives a substantial boost to polarization and therefore the image signal-to-noise.

      There is some more information about low field MRI in this paper.

    4. Re:Stronger pre-polarizatin field is used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike the prepolarization, the readout needs to be done by a very homogeneous field. Homogeneity is cheap to attain at low fields and expensive at high fields.

    5. Re:Stronger pre-polarizatin field is used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ususally the prepolarization field is not homogeneous enough for imaging. The prepolarization magnet is just there to increase the spin count before reading in the homogenious lower field.

    6. Re:Stronger pre-polarizatin field is used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would be a bit skeptical about the earth's magnetic field being very homogeneous. Any ferromagnetic objects (such those made of steel) would perturb the magnetic field very noticeably. However, the ultra-low field imaging technique seems to be much less sensitive to field inhomogeneity than conventional MRI.
      The imaging results, while amazing for such low field, are still nothing to get excited about. Future version of the system are expected to use a higher polarizing field and a lower-noise detector. Then the images might start resembling something useful (show higher signal-to-noise ratio or resolution). However, it's hard for me to imagine how this system can achieve images even remotely close to run-of-the-mill 1.5 tesla MRI in widespread use today. "Portability" or lower cost may not be such great advantages if the resulting images are clinically (or even academically) useless.

    7. Re:Stronger pre-polarizatin field is used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Larmour frequency for 30 mT is about 1.28 MHz, which is in the AM broadcast band. Interference is likely to be a significant problem.


      If that was the reason, they would just pre-polarize to a different field. Most MRI happens in the middle of some radio band, and at ~2 KHz, there is going to be lots of interference from 60/50 Hz harmonics or other mains related EM radiation. The interference is removed by shielding the magnet / room. In this case, I think they also used a gradiometer coil which is pretty good at rejecting external interference.
    8. Re:Stronger pre-polarizatin field is used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, you're right about the earth's field business. (If you're out in the woods though, it is really homogeneous - see some of Stephan Appelt's work from Julich.) When I read the headline, I was thinking this was earth's field. For this work, they have a shim unit (see the paper I referenced) to give them their homogeneity. As one of the other AC's pointed out, it's a lot cheaper to get homogeneity at low fields than it is at high fields. It is also worth noting that Magritek, a company pointed out in an earlier post in the thread, does have an earth's field imaging system with shim coils to give appropriate B0 homogeneity.

      With regards to using a higher prepolarizing field, there must be a point pretty quickly where dB/dt get's too big for a patient to be safe when you're switching that field off.

      It is too bad there's not a slashdot for NMR scientists.

    9. Re:Stronger pre-polarizatin field is used by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      They want to do MEG and MRI together. MEG measures small magnetic fields in the brain. MEG doesn't like big magnetic fields. The stronger your polarization field is though, the better signal to noise you get.

    10. Re:Stronger pre-polarizatin field is used by IvyKing · · Score: 1
      It's easier to make a gradiometer work well at low frequencies where the electric field pick-up can be ignored. The interference from the 50/60 Hz power lines is fairly stable and it is possible to get pretty significant attenuation of that interference source.


      The one advantage of using the earth's field is that it is reasonably uniform in a clean environment, and the pre-polarizing field doesn't need to be anywhere near as uniform as the readout field. In a not so clean environment, it is possible to use the gradient coils to clean up the earth's field a bit.

    11. Re:Stronger pre-polarizatin field is used by awfar · · Score: 1

      I suggest that the point is to demonstrate minimal power, and that 30mT is necessary to disrupt and homogenize any local static and pre-magnetization of the sample. This seems like it would be necessary since any ultra low field perturbation and later measurement would be overwhelmed.

  6. MRI accidents by l00sr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hopefully this will also put an end to those pesky MRI accidents. Not that they're common, but still, those things aren't toys.

    1. Re:MRI accidents by Barkmullz · · Score: 1


      Not that they're common, but still, those things aren't toys.

      Thank you for pointing out that MRI's are not toys.

      ;-)

      --
      Ronald said nothing. He flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse, and rode madly off in all directions.
    2. Re:MRI accidents by myth_of_sisyphus · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was in a gown prepared to get an MRI for my back and a little old lady in the waiting room with me refused to give the MRI tech her purse. She was in a gown holding her giant purse with metal snaps and buckles tightly. (An amusing image. I lol'd)

      She said "I don't want to leave my purse behind. I'll hold it really tight."

      The tech said "You can't hold it. It'll tear your arms off."

      She said "I'll just set it on a chair next to me."

      He said "You can't bring it with you. There's a big magnet in the room and it will go flying and might hit you in the head."

      She refused to give up the purse. Couldn't grasp the concept of giant purse-eating magnet. She got dressed and left.

      The MRI tech and I were laughing about it as he set me up in the machine.

    3. Re:MRI accidents by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      Clearly you're ignoring the Fisher-Price MRI for Tots toy, priced at a reasonable $500,000 for discerning parents who want their kids to go to Harvard someday. And besides, it's always fun for a kid to force his little sister to put her head in a superconducting magnet chamber or face evisceration of her dolly.

  7. other implications by SuperBanana · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Off the top of my head, some plusses and negatives.

    Plusses: less (very expensive) liquid helium or (less expensive but still $$) liquid nitrogen. Less of a magnetic field means much higher MRI safety; everything from oxygen cylinders to chairs to guns have been drawn into/against MRIs (the gun was a prison guard who got pushy and DEMANDED to be in the same room as a prisoner. Yeah, the gun went off. No, nobody was hurt.)

    Negatives: since the MRI isn't as strong, it might be more affected by local magnetic fields from wiring, ferrous objects, etc. Dunno. Right now, MRIs are installed into big rooms that have as little ferrous material as possible, and then very carefully "shimmed" to adjust for the building and local magnetic fields by a technician. Even if an MRI gets down to "suitcase" size, the necessity of a "clean" environment and calibration for each location might make moving them around very tough.

    As a side note, there are already shielded MRI machines which work in a trailer and require little setup time, but being outdoors makes things easier- no building infrastructure to mess with the magnetic fields.

    1. Re:other implications by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the gun went off. No, nobody was hurt.

            I was going to make some witty comment about the bullet not going very far, but then again lead isn't paramagnetic, is it? :)

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:other implications by SuperBanana · · Score: 2, Informative

      I was going to make some witty comment about the bullet not going very far, but then again lead isn't paramagnetic, is it? :)

      Nope, though not all bullets are lead.

      Jokes aside, the field is very strong and ALWAYS on. The oxygen cylinder incident killed the kid who was in the MRI machine at the time; gooooo White Plains Medical center!

      Another benefit I forgot to mention is that the machine won't need to be powered up for very long, nor will it need to be quenched in the event of an emergency (which entitles dumping all the electrical energy into heat. Sometimes accidentally, like when the liquid helium coolant drops too low.) It also opens up avenues for people who have metal implants to get MRIs. It's not just magnetic attraction that is a problem; metal can be heated up by the rapidly switching field during an actual scan. High strength MRIs already do this in your *body* because of its conductivity!(we're talking the newest, highest strength human-clinical machines. Research MRIs well exceed clinical machines, and a lot of clinical machines are only a few tesla.)

    3. Re:other implications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Negatives: since the MRI isn't as strong, it might be more affected by local magnetic fields from wiring, ferrous objects, etc.


      Actually, since the field is so weak (0.5 Gauss compared to 15000 gauss or so for a regular MRI), the effects of surrounding ferromagnetic objects are much less pronounced. As far as wiring goes, they would definitely have to make sure that their MR frequency is not a harmonic of 60Hz.
    4. Re:other implications by uop · · Score: 1

      Another possible plus: people with pacemakers may finally be able to undergo MRI.
      My understanding was that the strong and fast-changing magnetic field caused current to flow through the electrode in the patient's body. Current translates to heat (not good...). Maybe if the field will be weaker this unpleasant(!?) side effect would be alleviated.

    5. Re:other implications by jandoedel · · Score: 1

      The problem with pacemakers is mostly the fact that there are 2 kinds of pacemaker: synchronous and asynchronous. The synchronous ones have electronics that can be programmed/read using changing magnetic fields (with frequency of a couple dozen Hertz i think). And the constant switching on/off of the gradient fields in MRI is often of that order of magnitude, which means that you can accidentally reprogram or deactivate the pacemaker.

    6. Re:other implications by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Some twenty-odd years ago when I was doing some research software for a teaching hospital in the city, I had noticed there was some significant construction going on, some kind of addition to the main building. I didn't know what it was for at the time. A couple months later I was walking down a hallway with one of the doctors I was working with, and noticed what looked like a two-foot-square hole in the wall that hadn't been there the day before. It had been crudely patched with plasterboard. The doctor told me that a workman had been walking by carrying a window air conditioner at the exact moment the operator was test firing the magnets for the new MRI center they had just built right next door. It literally sucked the A/C out of the guy's hands, and slammed it through the wall and out the other side. Fortunately nobody was hurt.

      I presume they must have done something to prevent such occurrences: so far as I'm aware it never happened again.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    7. Re:other implications by 2short · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ten years ago my girlfriend at the time was involved in research using NIHs 4T human machine, a 3-story tall superconducting magnet. There was a fence outside part of the building with signs saying keep out, strong magnetic fields. But one day my girlfriend told me how the director had to go running outside because some workmen digging a trench were taking down a section of the fence, preparing to bring a backhoe through. After arguing a bit with the construction foreman about this being where the trench was supposed to go, and how he really didn't think a magnet was going to hurt his backhoe, she took one of their shovels and stuck it to the wall. That got their attention long enough to explain how many millions of dollars they would owe her if their backhoe gets sucked though the side of the building and breaks her magnet.

    8. Re:other implications by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Either someone was putting you on or that centre was criminally badly designed. You also don't really "test fire" a high field MR magnet. You ramp it up slowly to full power and then it stays there indefinitely.

      The fringe field for even a large high field magnet doesn't really extend all that far. The 5 Gauss line (go across that and you might get your credit cards erased but it STILL won't make anything fly) is maybe 15 feet from the magnet. It's just far enough that the line goes through the middle of the desk in the control room, but is inside the shielded room everywhere else. There's a mobile magnet on the other side of the wall and we used to toss paperclips at that wall when we were bored (they'd stick) but that was only a foot or two from the magnet.

    9. Re:other implications by torkus · · Score: 1

      FYI, liquid N2 isn't really that expensive. On the order of $20 per litre in small quantities.

      Buy a couple hundered gallons and it'll be much cheaper. In fact, you start getting to the point where it's cheaper to make it youself. Since most hospitals make and store LOX, it shouldn't be too difficult.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    10. Re:other implications by dinsdale3 · · Score: 1

      Additional Plusses: Actually it is a lot easier to make a low field magnet homogeneous than a high field. Also, the effect of many image artifacts will be significantly smaller (e.g. susceptibility gradients due to tissue interfaces).

      Additional BIG negatives:
      Signal to Noise - To a first approximation, the MRI signal strength is roughly proportional to the square of the magnetic field. While you can get some of that back by tweaking the experimental conditions, it will still boil down to either much longer imaging times or significantly lower resolution.

      Contrast - The contrast in an MRI image is very dependent upon the magnetic field strength. At the field used in clinical scanners (usually 1.5 Tesla), the behaviors of different pathologies are extremely well known, which allows a diagnosis to be made. Even if the image quality is improved to the point where you could see something useful, it will take a lot of work before anyone knows how to actually interpret the images reliably for any serious work.

      It is also worth mentioning that TFA is an (apparently) unpublished abstract, probably put together for the ISMRM (International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine) conference next May (their submission deadline was last Wednesday).

      That said, this does appear to be an impressive technical achievement and is worth pursuing... it just isn't going to revolutionize healthcare anytime soon.

    11. Re:other implications by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1
      s/indefinitely/until quench/

      And the quench is not always planned...

    12. Re:other implications by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Indefinitely: not definite; without fixed or specified limit.

      In other words the magnet remains stable for a non-predetermined amount of time, which you hope is a long time.

    13. Re:other implications by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

      Buy a couple hundered gallons and it'll be much cheaper. In fact, you start getting to the point where it's cheaper to make it youself. Since most hospitals make and store LOX, it shouldn't be too difficult.

      If you had the slightest idea what you were talking about, you'd know that liquid oxygen has a higher temperature than liquid nitrogen. This is actually a danger of working with LN; you can end up with oxygen condensing in something you're cooling in LN.

      They also consume quite a bit of LOX, so it's economical to run a LOX plant. It's not economical to run a LN plant; it's not used enough. Yes, it's not "that" expensive, but it adds up over time, and it also represents an operational hazard.

    14. Re:other implications by tiny-e · · Score: 1

      I do RF shielding for a living (for MRI mostly), and occasionaly get to work with ramped magnets (magnets at field)...

      I'm thinking all one would need to use the "suitcase" MR in multiple locations is a "generic" RF shield, and a "standard" magnetic shield. If you place the unit in a room (or rooms) that are all acceptably similar in compsition and geometry, I would think that it would function normally -all other things being fairly equal, I think you could then have a "standard" shim, or a shim kit for the magnet that would allow you to compensate for the small differences in the different environments.

      I wonder what RF attenuation specs the shield would need for this smaller unit --wondering when the day will come that my trade will be made obsolete by better image processing software, DSP's, etc.

    15. Re:other implications by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

      The doctor told me that a workman had been walking by carrying a window air conditioner at the exact moment the operator was test firing the magnets for the new MRI center they had just built right next door.

      That's a cute story, but also shows a complete lack of knowledge of how MRIs work. The magnet is always on. The noise you hear during an MRI is the field switching, physically loading the coil. Anyway, you don't 'fire up' an MRI magnet, you "ramp" it up; they have to be charged slowly, using a specialized power supply that injects energy into the coil. It takes a technician hours to do it, and it's (hopefully) only done once in the lifetime of the magnet; the only other reason you'd have to do it was if you had an accidental or purposeful quench.

      Someone should have lost their job for not building the room large enough to prevent such an incident (if it actually happened); the field strength drops dramatically with distance.

      Oh- I also doubt the story because if it had been strong enough to rip the AC unit out of his hands, it would have continued until it hit the magnet. An AC unit would most certainly have enough mass to severely damage if not destroy the dewar, which would have resulted in loss of LN/LOX containment failure and rapid quenching (and probably destruction) of the magnet. You would have heard a lot more fuss about it.

    16. Re:other implications by tgilk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Man, I'd love to get the details on that! I'm an architect that specializes in MRI facility design & construction and I'd love to be able to document that story.

      Another similar story, an MRI facility in Arkansas had just been built and the Fire Marshal was on his way to do the final inspection. However, before he got there, the sprinkler contractor decided to take the oxyacetylene torch rig into the room to fix a leaky sprinkler head. The magnet grabbed the tanks, drew them inside, snapped the valve off, the spark from which ignited the gases. The fire caught the magnet and building on fire, totaling both.

    17. Re:other implications by segwonk · · Score: 1

      Man, oh man - I gotta say that I really wish I could believe these Urban-Legend caliber stories. Too good to be true, it seems to me. In the early 90's I was working in television prodution, and we did a story on MRI machines. I clearly remember our camera man walking right *next* to the machine, and a "grip clip" that he had attached to his shirt started floating in mid air as it gently tugged against the shirt. It was nowhere even close to ripping air-conditioning units through sheet rock or dragging back-hoes through the dirt from who knows how many feet away. Am I right, or has magnet strength really increased many orders of magnitude in the last 15 years? -- jw

      --
      - ------ Go 'til ya know.
    18. Re:other implications by tgilk · · Score: 1
      15 years ago the strongest MRI's in popular use were 1.5 Tesla in strength. Think of magnet strength in terms of the depth of a hole... the stronger the magnet, the deeper the hole.

      The attractive force that a magnet exerts on a ferromagnetic object is only in part a function of the depth of the hole. The more important function is the steepness of the sides of the hole. A gradual slope will attract objects to the bottom, but a steep slope will be harder to overcome.

      Magnets have gotten more powerful. 1.5 Tesla magnets are run-of-the-mill today, and not the highest strength available as was the case 15 years ago. The bigger factor is that MRI systems today now have what's called 'active shielding' which essentially condenses the magnetic field emanating from the MRI into a smaller footprint.

      Going back to my hole-in-the-ground analogy, the hole isn't necessarily deeper, but the sides are much, much steeper. Instead of having the gentle slope-to-the-center profile of the bottom of a pond, it's now like a sinkhole, dropping off suddenly.

      You might be able to get closer to contemporary magnets before feeling the tug of the magnet, but the distance between the gentle tug and the MRI ripping whatever it is out of your grasp and stuffing it into the hole in the magnet is shorter and shorter.

      For things like a backhoe, where the driver won't necessarily feel the little 'tug', it's easy to inadvertently wander into the higher strength part of the field. And the larger the object, the further from the MRI it will be subject to the magnetic attractive effects.(The bigger and more ferromagnetic the object, the bigger and steeper the hole in the analogy)

      There are plenty of urban legends around MRI, but I've come to find that most are substantiated. Yes, some are puffed in the retelling, and some are patently false, but my experience leads me to believe that stories are true unless dis-proven (or clearly impossible).

      http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/content/full/178/5/1092
      http://www.mri-planning.com/videos/video_dl.html
      http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/content/full/177/1/27
      http://www.simplyphysics.com/flying_objects.html

    19. Re:other implications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) The NIH 4T human machine, a 3-story tall superconducting magnet, is not at all the run-of-the-mill MRI machine your camera man came close to.

      2) Magnetic effects are also a function of the amount of mass present in the object being acted upon. The human body has minerals throughout that are acted upon, but in such small quantities that a human can go into a MRI machine just fine. A "grip clip" is not at all, literally, massive enough to do what bigger objects can in the vicinity of MRI machines.

    20. Re:other implications by 2short · · Score: 1

      "has magnet strength really increased many orders of magnitude in the last 15 years"

      No, this was in the early nineties. Compared to ordinary MRI machines at your local hospital, the field strength of the NIH 4T human machine was orders of magnitude bigger back then. It had at the time a reasonable claim to being the biggest magnet in the world (depending how you counted).

    21. Re:other implications by 2short · · Score: 1

      Well, apparently NIH could have used you :) From what I gathered, the facility was significantly misplanned for the size of the machine, hence the fences at certain points outside to keep cars/bikes/backhoes away from the wall. Also, several hallways inside had signs posted saying that if you walk through this section the mag stripe on you credit cards might suffer.

      The geekiest bit was the monitors in the control room. A ways away from the machine, but it still twisted the scanbeam of a CRT pretty well, so the image showed up rotated by 30 degrees or so. They'd taken the low-tech solution, and built little wooden wedges to mount the monitors crooked to compensate. All these cock-eyed screens with straight pictures on them. And of course the emergency shut-down switch... Since the magnet is superconducting, cutting the power won't do anything, so if you hit that big red button it vents the coolant, the magnet warms and acquires resistance, and parts of it melt, but it's the only way to shut it down. Hanging from the button was a little price tag, with a lot of zeroes...

      As far as the story, note that the backhoe did not actually get sucked anywhere, it was stopped in time. I did see the trench they were digging, which sure enough ran straight at the relevant fence, but I can't actually verify the drama of the confrontation. I only heard about it second hand over beer, so some embellishment may well have occurred.

  8. Getting there, but not there yet. Too low-rez by Animats · · Score: 2, Informative

    Very nice. The images are still very blurry (resolution 81×61×11), and the detectors, at 37mm, are big, but it's a start.

  9. I hope they do away with the tunnels by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I had to have several MRI & CT scans and that friggin tunnel is more than I can handle.
    They tried to put me in one with the normal little tunnel (about as big around as a five gallon bucket) and I freaked out before I got 2' into it and made them back me out. Then they put me in an "open" MRI machine but it was like being crushed under a car. No way Jose. Abort #2.
    So I went to another city where they had a different kind that was a little more "open" than #2.
    This one then pumped me full of Xanax and I survived it.

    The CT scan was not quite as bad because it was like a large doughnut and there was only about 1' of my body inside it but it still freaked me out.
    Xanax on that one too.

    I swore I'll die before I ever go in one of those damn things ever again.
    They need to come up with a better way. Some people can't handle that crap.
    I hope these new ones are a break away from the "trapped in a pipe" or "crushed under a car" machines.

    1. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For some reason I find that your comment suits your screen name just fine...

      Of course I understand completely that people don't have to justify their phobias, but you have to admit that you must have caused quite a few shaken heads, raised eyebrows, and sighs of exasperation on behalf of the medical staff. Especially considering that because of their scarcity such machines usually have a line of people waiting for them.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by RallyNick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I had to have several MRI & CT scans and that friggin tunnel is more than I can handle.

      Why not use a cloth eye cover?

    3. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by kailoran · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd assume those shaking heads were muttering "geez, another one" rather than "omg wtf how can someone be afraid of it". Claustrophobia isn't all that unheard of, and being shoved into a friggin pipe is somewhat a powerful trigger.

    4. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by Nyago · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it were easy (or even moderately hard) to control a phobia, I suspect most people would. Justification is irrelevant. It matters only that the fear exists. Conquering a phobia typically requires exposure (with neutral or rewarding consequences) to the fear-provoking stimulus. In his case, gradual exposure to being in the tube.

      I realize that many people find it difficult to understand the lack of control inherent in a phobia. I (with my injection phobia) am often told (by medical professionals) simply to get over it. Unfortunately, when a needle is present, I descend into blind animal panic. My rational mind ceases to function. The thoughts of controlling and pushing through the fear don't even occur to me. It is a pure flight-or-fight response, and I have done both.

      Additionally, the guilt of having wasted time (of the doctors or other patients) needlessly adds to the unpleasantness of the situation. His attempts to undergo the procedure are, in my opinion, courageous.

      People need help, not guilt or reprimands.

      --
      Reality is fluffy!
    5. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      My experience in those machines had nothing to do with paranoia.
      It was 100% to do with claustrophobia .
      Before I went in for the scans I had no idea I had claustrophobia.
      Being stuffed into the machines caused me extreme panic attacks to the point I thought I was going to die.
      After they pulled me out I couldn't breath and thought I was going to have a heart attack because my heart was racing wild.

      And you know what, I don't give a shit what anyone else thought about my problem with those machines.
      And for your information, I PAID CASH for those scans. There was no insurance or socialized anything involved.
      I PAID CASH for everything.
      And there's no scarcity of those machines. There's dozens of them in this area, including several in STRIP MALLS..
      Yes, in a STRIP MALL right next to a Verizon cell phone store and two doors down from a Chinese resteraunt.
      And where I ended up going to for the scan I was doped up, there's probably 100 MRI machines there, in a city of 4 million..

      Get your facts straight before you go pointing fingers and calling names.

    6. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by reboot246 · · Score: 1
      I'm having an MRI done next week to find out if I'm claustrophobic. :)

      All kidding aside, I've had two MRIs in the last few years. I'm not at all claustrophobic, so the tube doesn't bother me; I've been in tighter places than that several hundred feet underground. Just close your eyes, listen to the nice music, and try not to think about it.

    7. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you are yelling at a figment of the Internet's imagination. Time to breathe deeply and let it go.

    8. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      With all respect, I doubt there are hundreds of MRIs in a single location. The price tags run into millions. Not tens or hundreds of thousands - millions. Perhaps you can provide us with the name of this facility?

      As far as the claustrophobia goes, MRI is a bad time to find out.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    9. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

      MRI machines do not run into the millions of dollars. They average under a half million each.
      Do some research, don't make unsubstantiated wild guess claims.

      As to the MRI clinics available, look in the Houston yellow pages. There's plenty listed there including several in strip malls.

    10. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would closing your eyes or putting on a non-magnetic eye patch while listening some music help?

    11. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by blincoln · · Score: 1

      Why not use a cloth eye cover?

      I imagine that wouldn't work - the person with the eye cover on would know that the MRI machine was still out there... waiting to constrict them like an enormous metallic python.
      I had an MRI a few years ago. Having to lie unmoving for so long was a bit surreal, and I got into a kind of self-hypnotized state which made the time seem to go faster. I'm not claustrophobic, but one thing that sort of creeped me out was the tiny mirror that was right in front of my eyes. The effect reminded me of looking at someone - myself in this case - looking out from an iron maiden, or the cryogenic capsules containing dead astronauts in 2001.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    12. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      MRI machines cost several million dollars http://www.science.org.au/nova/062/062key.htm

      an average MRI machine costs approximately $2 million to buy and install http://www.phc4.org/reports/fyi/fyi27.htm

      Overall cost of the MRI machine was nearly $1 million http://www.bellevuehospital.com/new_mri_moves_in.htm

      Construction costs approximately US$ 1 million per Tesla http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magnetic_resonance_imaging&oldid=170202436
      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    13. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Informative

      I had to have several MRI & CT scans and that friggin tunnel is more than I can handle.

      I haven't seen one in person yet, but there's apparently a company which produces something called the Fonar 360, which instead of having a tunnel basically turns the entire room is a magnet. This is useful not just for reducing claustrophobia, but also hypothetically allows for surgery to occur while somebody is inside of an MRI. I think the spatial resolution however is quite a bit weaker than typical scanners.

      The same company also has an Upright MRI product, where the patient sits down with open space in front of them.

    14. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by tsa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's indeed scary to be in that pipe. Not only is it very narrow and you can't get out yourself, but the machine makes very loud noises when in operation. Being inside a working MRI machine is not a fun experience.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    15. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

      The first time they pulled me out they suggested putting a towel over my eyes.
      So we tried that and that made it worse and I bailed out before my shoulders got into the tube.

    16. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

      Nope.
      Besides, they didn't have music at any of the three places I went to.
      They said speakers (which as magnetically driven) can't operate in the high magnetic fields.
      Also the MRI machine is extremely loud. It's a hellish noise.
      But believe me, no music or eye covers can cover the fact that they're jamming you into a tube that you can't move in and can't escape from.
      My third MRI attempt required that I was in a very large and "open" type machine - http://www.kingsmedical.com/equipment-open-mri.htm
      and that I was heavily medicated. Even with the medication it was a terrifying experience.
      It felt to me like I was being shoved under a car or into one of those giant forge hammers like you see on the history channel where they are hammering huge battleships gun barrels out of red hot steel.

      People that don't have claustrophobia can't understand the sheer terror and panic it throws you into.
      It's a very, very bad thing to experience.

    17. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

      I had asked for them to use one of those types of scanners on me but the surgeon said he would not accept the scans because the resolution was too poor and that he would not operate on me until he got the scans HE wanted.
      It was spinal surgery and required that they knew precisely what the damage was before they went in.
      Even so, it still didn't turn out very well.

    18. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by NeilTheStupidHead · · Score: 1

      While I empathize with your battles with claustophobia (acrophobia myself), dude, you need to calm down, maybe take a few more of those Xanax.

      --
      Lose: misplace or fail || Loose: not bound together
    19. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      They tried to put me in one with the normal little tunnel (about as big around as a five gallon bucket) and I freaked out before I got 2' into it and made them back me out.

      I agree with you 100%, pair-a-noyd. I'm almost 6' tall and pretty broad across the shoulders. I went to a local hospital for an MRI of my head. I went into the "bore" of the machine headfirst and I had to scrunch up my shoulders so I would fit into the machine. I made it about thirty seconds before I made them pull me out (I had no Xanax or Ativan prior to this MRI). I told the MRI techies that I wasn't going to be able to be stuff into that sewer pipe for ten or twenty minutes. They looked at me and then at the machine. One of them remarked, "We should have scheduled you for the large bore machine." Really? No fucking shit! Apparently the person who schedule my scan never thought to ask if I would need the "large bore" MRI machine to fit my shoulders.

      I swore I'd never go back to that hospital for an MRI. I mentioned this to a neurologist that I know. He told me to skip the hospital and to go to a local place that does only imaging called CDI http://www.cdiradiology.com/.

      I called CDI and mentioned my problem with being stuffed in the MRI like a cork in a bottle. They knew what I was talking about and scheduled me for the "open-sided MRI". On the day of the scan at CDI, I also received some Ativan or Xanax prior to the scan. The scan at CDI was a piece of cake and the staff treated me quite well.

      I had another scan (this time it was my neck) and I didn't even think about going to the large local hospital for the scan. I said "I'll be getting this scan done at CDI." The second scan at CDI went as well as the first. Because CDI only does imaging, they seem to have newer, more patient-friendly machines than the local hospital.

      If you need another scan in the future, don't hesitate to look for a place like CDI that specializes in imaging.

    20. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      I had asked for them to use one of those types of scanners on me but the surgeon said he would not accept the scans because the resolution was too poor and that he would not operate on me until he got the scans HE wanted.

      Yeah, I imagine the low resolution would be ok for certain types of diagnosis, but for a surgery they'd probably want something more detailed.

      Even so, it still didn't turn out very well.

      I'm really sorry to hear that. :(

    21. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by scottv67 · · Score: 0, Troll

      For some reason I find that your comment suits your screen name just fine...

      Of course I understand completely that people don't have to justify their phobias, but you have to admit that you must have caused quite a few shaken heads, raised eyebrows, and sighs of exasperation on behalf of the medical staff. Especially considering that because of their scarcity such machines usually have a line of people waiting for them.

      Fucking fuck you, you fucking judgmental prick. "Exasperated medical staff"? Go fuck yourself. Read my story (which is quite similar to the story posted by pair-a-noyd.) I am not normally claustrophobic but when I had to scrunch my shoulders together to fit into the bore of the MRI machine, that was a little too tight for me. It was like being stuffed headfirst into a sewer pipe.

      As for the med techs who have "shaken heads and raised eyebrows", one of the techs who was in the room when I was supposed to be scanned commented that I should have been scheduled for the "large bore" MRI. Even the MRI techs know that certain people don't fit into the old, small-bore MRI.

      Especially considering that because of their scarcity such machines usually have a line of people waiting for them.

      Scarcity? I had no problem scheduling a scan at CDI (http://www.cdiradiology.com/), a place that is actually concerned about patient comfort and doesn't mock people who don't like playing "i'm the cork in the bottle". CDI actually gets a lot of referral business because people can't stand being in the small-bore MRI machines.

      So fuck you, you obnoxious twit. Not all of us are 150lb beanpole geeks with the build of a 10 year-old-boy.

    22. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      People that don't have claustrophobia can't understand the sheer terror and panic it throws you into.
      It's a very, very bad thing to experience.


      pair-a-noyd, you don't have to apologize to anyone (here or anywhere else) about your experience in the MRI machine. I know exactly how you feel. I had the same problem myself. The bore of the MRI machine was not as big as my shoulders are wide. I was packed-in there pretty tight. I didn't make it very long before I made them pull me out. You are not alone, man. Plenty of people (even people with a smaller frame than me) hate being in those machines. If you have to get another scan in the future, look for a place with the "open sided" units (yes, I saw your comment about the doc not trusting the resolution of the opensided machines). Also, have them dope the crap out of you before the scan. With enough Xanax or Ativan in your system, you should be calm enough to tolerate the scan (but you'll need someone to drive you home after the procedure).

    23. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by venicebeach · · Score: 1

      We have magnet-compatible goggles with LCD screens in them, because we use the MRI for cognitive psychology experiments where you often want to present visual stimuli. Having these goggles on with something to look at, even if its just a screen saver, really helps a lot.

    24. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. That was very well-stated.

    25. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by Imabug · · Score: 1

      Low field 0.5T magnets found in many stand-alone imaging centers and ortho clinics might be in the $500k-$1M range, but the more typical 1.5T magnet found in hospitals is usually considerably more expensive, with 3T magnets around the $3-4M range.

      --
      "For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and Long Words Bother Me"
    26. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by statusbar · · Score: 1

      I had some MRI's - the music was piped through plastic hoses into my ears - no speakers or wires near the magnet.

        I found myself falling asleep. I think it best to listed to heavy/hard loud fast music instead of the sleepy stuff.

      --jeffk++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    27. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, as someone who has had nearly a dozen MRI's done over the past 12-14 yrs, I'll agree the older tunnel machines are a tight fit. I've very broad shoulders and can barely fit in one.

      Back in Arcadia, Ca in '97 I was about half way through a 20-min scan (listening/spacing-out to the "thump-thump-thump") when all of a sudden it goes dark, the thumping stops and is replaced by a gradually declining whirring sound. The techs came out and had to manually crank me out of the machine.

      Turns out something took out a transformer on a nearby power pole. They had a raft of APC UPS's to handle the computers and etc. but the MRI took too much juice to run off a UPS.

      Thanks to two herniated cervical discs with nerve-root compression, the MRI procedure can be quite uncomfortable. I've found 60mg of codiene helps ease the pain, 750-1500mg of methocarbamol relaxes the body and 15-30mg or so of Temazepam relaxes the mind.

      YMMV

    28. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by Smauler · · Score: 1

      It's a voluntary process. No one is forcing you into anything. Better systems are good, yes, but it's not a right to not be scared by medical processes. They are scary a lot of the time, but their point is not to not be scary, it's to do you good. If you don't like them, don't have them.

      ps. I'm pretty scared of loads of work that might need being done on my body... I hate the dentist, even though I've never had any major work done.

    29. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, "just get over it" is in fact a significant part of the whole phobia cure.
      You know desensitising through repeated exposure, and trying to in fact approach it rationally. All normal therapy. Some of these phobias are a bit complex to suggest it is some animal instinctual thing.
      Clearly an intelligent part of the brain is being stupid.
      Hopefully you are seeking therapy instead of just making others put up with it.

    30. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by Nyago · · Score: 1

      Well, "just get over it" is in fact a significant part of the whole phobia cure.
      You know desensitising through repeated exposure, and trying to in fact approach it rationally. Correct. My point was that it takes time. It's not something that people can overcome in an instant.

      Some of these phobias are a bit complex to suggest it is some animal instinctual thing. I was suggesting that the response to the fear-provoking stimulus can be deep animal panic. The brain is complex. Our rational and animal minds are more deeply interconnected than one may think.

      Clearly an intelligent part of the brain is being stupid. Not stupid. Simply oversensitive. Phobias arise in response to sufficiently unpleasant experiences. In my case, a traumatic spinal tap when I was very young. The experience at the time caused me sufficient pain and anxiety to produce a very strong aversion to even mild analogues of the experience (i.e. having a needle inserted in my arm to draw blood).

      Hopefully you are seeking therapy instead of just making others put up with it. I am indeed, when I can afford it. Therapy is not cheap. That said, I have made significant progress in dealing with my fears (like the ability to remain conscious and generally calm while blood is being drawn). It takes time and money, and unfortunately, sometimes medical problems crop up before it's possible to reduce or eliminate a phobia.

      It is the job of doctors and nurses to provide a comfortable experience with understanding and unconditional positive regard. This often doesn't happen (not always the fault of the doctors, though! Being overworked can make one cranky.)
      --
      Reality is fluffy!
    31. Re:I hope they do away with the tunnels by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 1

      I have acrophobia (fear of heights), so I understand completely. When I'm in a phobia-triggering situation, the effect not merely mental. I feel weak and dizzy, with and odd buzzing sensation going down my spine and other parts of my body.

      --
      He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
  10. for reference, Earth's magnetic field is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    about 50 microteslas http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/DanielleCaruso.shtml.

    according to the Fine Article:

    The measurment field in the article is 46 microteslas.
    (A "pre-polarization" field of 30 mT (milliteslas) is appled for one second before each meaurement)

  11. Smaller == Cheaper by iknownuttin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Smaller is nice, but what really needs to be done is to make them cheaper to purchase and operate. That way, even the local small hospitals can, hopefully, afford one. When you're sick and living out in the country, having to drive a hundred miles to the nearest machine can be quite a chore.

    --
    I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
    1. Re:Smaller == Cheaper by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Most of the cost of the current machines is in the high-field magnet.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  12. In home MRI scanner by backslashdot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder if this could finally lead to an "in home" MRI scanner? If it costs under a thousand bucks and a person has a family history of cancer, why not invest in one?

    Basically the device would be conveniently rolled over the bed once a month or so and scan. It will utilize advanced 3D image analysis to compare with last couple month's scan and see if you have any growing tumors. If so then you go get a proper scan done.

    This will go well with the "in toilet" piss or shit tester that will tell you if you're going diabetic or may be developing some other medical conditions for example like kidney disease or cancer, etc..

    1. Re:In home MRI scanner by Raptoer · · Score: 1

      As others have said though the MRI needs a clean environment without a large quantity of ferrous material(Iron, nickel, cobalt, and alloys with those in it) nearby. Inside of a house you have wires (while copper can still mess it up), nails, computers, TV's, bed frames, steel structural support, steel brackets, ect, ect.

      If they can reduce the field to be small enough then it might be useful for that, however it might be very inaccurate and could cause problems with ferrous objects being drawn toward it.

      The biggest contribution of having a smaller and cheaper device would be that every little doctor's office and clinic could get one (and have it within a relatively controlled environment, you can trust doctors + the technicians to put things in the right place a lot more than you can trust your average population). Major hospitals could easily have two or three, thus reducing the length of the queues and also increasing the number of problems it can be used to diagnose (why put someone in a 5 wk queue for a MRI which might be more accurate if you can put them in a 5 minute queue for an X-ray and get results before the person dies?).

    2. Re:In home MRI scanner by Albert+Sandberg · · Score: 1

      I wonder if this could finally lead to an "in home" MRI scanner? If it costs under a thousand bucks and a person has a family history of cancer, why not invest in one?

      because it will interfear with our tin foil hats of course.

    3. Re:In home MRI scanner by GrievousMistake · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Like other medical imaging technologies such as ultrasound, the images are medically pretty much worthless without a qualified operator to read them.
      For ultrasound systems, a far cheaper technology, the cheapest systems seem to be around $10,000. And while I could see the geek appeal of messing around with ultrasounding various animate and inanimate objects, I am sure that if the price should reach sub-1000's, it would quickly become another weapon in the arsenal of hypochondriacs and hysteric pregnant women. Much of the same goes for MRIs.

      --
      In a fair world, refrigerators would make electricity.
    4. Re:In home MRI scanner by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Why would someone have to wait 5 weeks for a MRI? The two major hospitals in my area have 1 or 2 MRI's each and this is in a town of less than 100,000 people.

    5. Re:In home MRI scanner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You're in the US, aren't you?

      That's one of the few joys of non-socialized medicine... Canada and the UK (for instance) have notoriously long waiting times for MRI's and CT's.

      NB: I live in the US and work in the medical field.

    6. Re:In home MRI scanner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like other medical imaging technologies such as ultrasound, the images are medically pretty much worthless without a qualified operator to read them.

      Thanks for posting this. And the medical software used to analyze these images (if there is such a thing) will have to default to OMG YOU HAVE CANCER as the manufacturers don't want to get sued if you're the 1 in 10M that have cancer but don't show many signs

    7. Re:In home MRI scanner by ameline · · Score: 2, Informative

      For cancer scanning, you'd really want a PET (positron emission tomography)

      --
      Ian Ameline
    8. Re:In home MRI scanner by Pigeon451 · · Score: 1

      The machine is also worthless without a trained operator to use them. It requires knowledge of the body, vascular system, organs, etc to know even where you're looking. The computer doesn't just spit out an answer with the disease, and the operator isn't the one who reads the images. An MD does.

    9. Re:In home MRI scanner by myth_of_sisyphus · · Score: 1

      In the US you can usually get an MRI within the hour if you go in for sprained back. A friend of mine just had that done. And he didn't have insurance.

      They sent him a bill for a couple thousand dollars a week later--he's a returning student and is going to go even more in debt--but he got his MRI!

    10. Re:In home MRI scanner by Idarubicin · · Score: 1

      For cancer scanning, you'd really want a PET (positron emission tomography)

      That's a good idea. A home scanning technique that requires intravenously-administered, short-half-life-made-on-site-in-a-cyclotron radioisotopes. Er, what?

      PET is something that you would use to confirm a diagnosis (look for metabolic hotspots if cancer is suspected) or detect metastases (tumours distant from the original site). It's never the first tool that a diagnostician reaches for.

      Besides, the resolution of PET is crap compared to MR. If a hypothetical hypochondriac really wanted to keep an eye out for tiny changes that might signal malignancy (or some other disorder), he'd want MR's higher resolution and zero ionizing radiation exposure.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    11. Re:In home MRI scanner by backslashdot · · Score: 1

      Just how do you know the specifications of a machine that does not exist? Please cite a law of physics or chemistry that excludes the machine from being able to analyze images and flag any sort of tumor. Furthermore it can be clearly stated that the machine is no substitute for real checkup. Why should some people have to waste their money on monthly doctor's visit's because a few people may abuse it?

      I bet when MRI machines and X rays were coming out with their low quality/resolution pics you would have been the one to say it's not a feasible thing to explore because it's impossible to train someone to detct a tumor on a picture and that it is no substitute for a doctor trying to feel through the skin for it.

      It's a lot easier of a problem than OCR, which by the way now some OCR programs are better than humans even when operating in real time.

      Doctors make a lot of mistakes too by the way. I have plenty of friends who have gotten misdiganosed by doctors. And I have doctor friends/relatives who readily admit that doctors are not infallible.

    12. Re:In home MRI scanner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but now the doctor doesn't have to be onsite!

      I could see this as potentially useful in some remote applications.

    13. Re:In home MRI scanner by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You can build yourself an ultrasound device if you want to, probably for under $50. Most EEG units cost around $50,000 too, but you can build yourself one for $20.

      The extra cost for the real thing is for quality, reliability and insurance.

    14. Re:In home MRI scanner by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I can imagine what the government would have to say about the home cyclotron you need to go along with that. Of course, if you were in the habit of regularly injecting yourself with a positron emitter you wouldn't really be a problem for long.

    15. Re:In home MRI scanner by Imabug · · Score: 1

      Actually, OCR is a considerably easier problem than creating a reliable CAD (Computer Aided Diagnosis) system.

      There's a lot of research going on in CAD. However, creating a reliable CAD system is far from trivial, and the ones that are currently in clinical use are very task specific and are never used as the primary diagnostic tool. CAD systems are normally used to highlight areas for the radiologist to examine a little more closely. AFAIK, in the US the only CAD systems approved by the FDA are in mammography and do a reasonably good job at finding calcifications, but suck at finding masses. Lots of work going on in CAD for lung masses, but still research.

      The type of CAD system you're envisioning is still a long, long way off.

      --
      "For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and Long Words Bother Me"
    16. Re:In home MRI scanner by j_sp_r · · Score: 1

      In small to medium sized hospitals the one interpreting the MRI results is probably the highest paid person in the building. Also, if a MRI scan is needed fast you can cut the queue, but you would just make an X-ray/CT because that takes seconds/a few minutes instead of half an hour or so.

    17. Re:In home MRI scanner by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I can't really understand students who don't have medical insurance. The rates are VERY low for good quality insurance. It probably has to do with the fact that few students die of chronic diseases. Students probably spend more on beer than it would cost to buy insurance.

  13. Re:We have determined that your brain configuratio by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Funny


    We have determined that your brain configuration predisposes you to rebellion


    (read that as: your head is still attached to your shoulders)

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  14. Lower health care costs? by JustShootMe · · Score: 1

    Maybe this will help bring down health care costs as hopefully these will be a lot cheaper - and hopefully no longer will hospitals in the middle of nowhere have to spend several million dollars on an MRI machine.

    Technology certainly doesn't have all the answers, but things like this can only lead to good.

    --
    For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
    1. Re:Lower health care costs? by scottv67 · · Score: 2

      Maybe this will help bring down health care costs as hopefully these will be a lot cheaper - and hopefully no longer will hospitals in the middle of nowhere have to spend several million dollars on an MRI machine. Technology certainly doesn't have all the answers, but things like this can only lead to good.

      While some of your hospital bill is due to the cost of acquiring and maintaining the expensive machines, are you also aware that part of your bill is due to people who use the hospital's services but don't pay for those services? Larger hospitals provide millions of dollars worth of services each year to people who can't pay for their medical treatment.

      When was the last time you went into a restaurant and ordered a $24-dollar steak but had to pay $32 for that steak because 15% of the restaurants patrons are members of the "dine and dash" club? People would never stand for that. But no one complains when people use a hospital (especially the Emergency Department) and don't pay the bills associated with those services (which results in higher bills for people who *do* pay their bills).

    2. Re:Lower health care costs? by JustShootMe · · Score: 1

      In a restaurant, the choice is "eat here or eat somewhere else". In a hospital, the choice is "use our services or die". I'm a little more inclined to be forgiving in that situation.

      --
      For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
    3. Re:Lower health care costs? by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      In a restaurant, the choice is "eat here or eat somewhere else". In a hospital, the choice is "use our services or die". I'm a little more inclined to be forgiving in that situation.

      1) Not every patient who enters the Emergency Department is dying.

      2) In my example, there are no restaurants that do not suffer from "dine and dash" patrons. The same is try for hospitals. There are no magical hospitals that get paid for 100% of the services they render.

  15. Nothing _that_ new... by imsabbel · · Score: 2, Informative

    Its not like the effect used in NMR is _only_ viable at high field strengts.

    Its just that higher fields (or more correctly put, higher field gradients) allow for higher resolution.
    Looking at this publication, they archived about 5mm resulution with a 50uT field.
    Real high-end small bore scanners can get 3 orders of magniture higher.

    And the "maybe can it fit in a glovebox" part is _severely_ limited by the use of 7(!) Squids... Each of which will need a LN/LH cryosystem.

    Still, this looks quite interesting, but its not like it completely depricates the current stuff.

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    1. Re:Nothing _that_ new... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not quite. Higher gradients give you faster imaging. Higher fields give you better signal to noise. Better signal to noise can allow you to actually use those higher gradients without ending up with a big mess of noisy pixels.

      If you've got lots of time you can achieve more or less any resolution you want with any field strength you like. The problem is, the darn patients keep getting impatient and moving.

      The summary is pretty wildly inaccurate. This is actually a dual field scanner that uses a stronger field to polarize the sample and a weaker one for readout. It's pretty cool, but it's a niche thing... these guys want to do MEG scanning along with MRI and MEG is allergic to large magnetic fields. It won't be replacing the regular superconducting scanners and it won't be making cheap in-home scanners possible.

      You can do nMR in the Earth's magnetic field if you want to. It's actually possible to set it up at home. I think someone was selling science kits for a while.

    2. Re:Nothing _that_ new... by DrLudicrous · · Score: 1

      There are hard limits to resolution. You mentioned one in the SNR issue. But you signal average till kingdom come to get around that. Another issue is that at very small voxel sizes, diffusion becomes important, and you get blurring in your image as a result. Understanding how important this is depends on the tissue type, of which I am not an expert (I am not a clinical MRI guy, but a research and development type). BTW, the SNR enhancement from stronger fields goes roughly as the square of the field, so doing these same scans in a 7 Tesla scanner, all other things being equal (which they wouldn't be), would increase the SNR by over 50,000. That is using a 30 mT field, skipping over the 46 microTesla detection field. Honestly, they might be better off trying to do PEDRI, and excite electron resonances, and then couple to the protons via the Overhauser effect to improve their SNR at the higher field. Basically reverse what they are doing now- excite at 46 microT, and detect at 30mT. Or even polarize at 30mT, excite electrons at 46microT, and detect at 30mT. The higher field affects both the net polarization of the spins AND the sensitivity of the detection coils, which is why you'd want to come back to 46 mT. Of course, I am not thinking of using SQUIDS, but more conventional style coils...

    3. Re:Nothing _that_ new... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Nah, you can fix diffusion. You just have to cool down the sample. As a bonus, you gain SNR too. Again, the limiting factor is the whiny patients. They do stop whining if you get them cold enough though.

    4. Re:Nothing _that_ new... by DrLudicrous · · Score: 1

      Well, so one would think. Unfortunately, there is a fairly hard limit to lowering diffusion via temperature, which is that water freezes at 0C. Once you have a solid, NMR/MRI becomes much more difficult- relaxation times decrease by orders of magnitude (no more motional narrowing), causing short-lived signal and broad linewidths. And even lowering the temperature to just above freezing will only nominally change the diffusion coefficient, probably not more than a factor of 5 or so.

    5. Re:Nothing _that_ new... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Okay, without the jokes, we're talking about very low field strengths. I suppose you COULD push things far enough that diffusion would be a problem, but as long as you're talking about live subjects other factors are going to put limits on the resolution before you have to start worrying about diffusion. For a very high field system diffusion is going to be a limiting factor but for this system you'd probably have to image for days or weeks with an absolutely still subject before you started to get close to diffusion limits.

  16. MRI engineers are anonymous cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just curious if all MRI engineers are anonymous cowards or just the slashdot type. Maybe we can speculate who made each comment at the next ISMRM.

  17. Important development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is an important development for people who have pacemakers. We can't be scanned with MRIs; the magnetic field is strong enough to attempt to rip the wires right out of our chest and induce a strong electrical current directly into the heart, both of which are bad things.

  18. Great! Now Lower The Cost! by CranberryKing · · Score: 1

    Then maybe I wouldn't have to go out and buy insurance just for the bleeding MRI only to find out my ACL is only partially torn and doesn't need surgery.

    Seriously, if you are paying out of pocket the cost of the MRI alone is prohibitive. I find it hard to believe it really costs the operator $1-2K to fire it up for 45 minutes, but IANAC.

    1. Re:Great! Now Lower The Cost! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it hard to believe it really costs the operator $1-2K to fire it up for 45 minutes...

      Actually, I think it's *REALLY* expensive if they actually shut it down and "fire it up". They try to keep them up and running every minute possible. This helps offset the millions of dollars in purchase cost and maintenance.

    2. Re:Great! Now Lower The Cost! by howlingmadhowie · · Score: 1

      the ones i use are never switched off, they run the whole time (the superconductors are cooled by liquid helium (i think). the smaller gradient fields are just switched on and off when needed.

    3. Re:Great! Now Lower The Cost! by wronskyMan · · Score: 1

      Ahem...

      IAAFCT (I Am A Former Cryogenic Tech)

      While I only worked with NMR setups, the principles are often the same.

      Magnets require periodic refills of liquid nitrogen (ours about 160L/week@0.20/L) and liquid helium (about 120L/mo@$5/L). Google for helium shortage and you will see the reason for this; basically helium is only produced as a byproduct of natural gas production and only in a few places so our $5/L was actually quite low (we were near a gas hub).

      In addition to cryogens, specialized engineer/techs are required to maintain these (on the order of $50k for a weeklong tune-up visit) as well as radiologists and technicians to operate and interpret images. The specialized steel rooms/other construction can easily add another $100k or more in costs, and the magnets and imaging equipment can run into the millions, plus the cost of malpractice insurance which NMR facilities don't have to deal with. Admittedly, the malpractice would probably be lower if people did not pull stupid tricks with large metal objects, but it is quite significant for most medical providers.

      --
      --- You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad- Neal (not Cowboy) Boortz
  19. Can I finally have an MRI done? by FunWithKnives · · Score: 1

    I wonder if this will open up MRIs to those of us who currently cannot have them done. I have a metal-mesh plate in my skull due to an open brain injury, and my doctors repeatedly cautioned that I can never, under any circumstances, undergo an MRI. The electro-magnets are apparently so powerful that they have the ability to rip the plate right out of my head.

    So, perhaps now that they've found a way to get around the necessity of humongous electro-magnets, people like me will be able to take on an MRI without fear of a grotesque, horror movie-like death?

    --
    "We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
    1. Re:Can I finally have an MRI done? by IvyKing · · Score: 1
      The system from TFA may not be of much help to you. For one, the system still uses a fairly power pre-polarization field which could interact with your plate. Another problem is that the plate could interfere with the excitation and readout fields (this could be minimized by changing orientation).


      Your doctors were doing you good service about the warnings with respect to MRI.

  20. Interesting... by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 1

    Makes me wonder if they'll be able to throw you in an MRI without removing your metallic objects. Or even a Terminator-style MRI-based walk-through security scanner?

    1. Re:Interesting... by tsa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's what I thought. People with a pacemaker for instance, can not be imaged with an MRI anymore now. Hopefully that'll change in the near future.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    2. Re:Interesting... by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      Makes me wonder if they'll be able to throw you in an MRI without removing your metallic objects. Or even a Terminator-style MRI-based walk-through security scanner? That scanner was from Total Recall. For better or worse, we're not that far off.
  21. We Just Won the War On Terror. by tjstork · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The whole proclaimed need for communications surveillance and arbitary invasions of ideological nations is because there's not a practical warning and defense system against some jackass carrying a bomb.

    Now, there is.

    If small, portable MRIs can be mass produced, we could have simple scanners that you step through in key areas, and quickly identify if you have explosives on your person. There's no need for trying to figure out who might try and blow someone or something up. Instead, we'll just be able to catch people with explosives as they walk down the street.

    The implications of this sort of capability are far reaching. If the state can effectively monitor explosives themselves, there's no need to even really spend too much effort chasing after people, and as such, doesn't have to take draconian measures to protect itself. Empires have again become possible. If the USA had thousands of these things in Iraq, ringing check points and troop locations, or even, if possible, scanning ahead of convoys, then, the only weapon terrorists have would be effectively eliminated. A guy carries explosives somewhere, and he gets caught. Perhaps a state could even follow people buying chemical precursers. RDX (the stuff used to make C4), for example, has some stuff that's rather unusual in its own right. Perhaps a state could follow people that have explosives, for example, if a weapons maker is actually trying to bring parts to the leader of a cell for distribution, you could let him or her actually transport the explosives, and tail him, and bust the larger cell up.

    Checkmate, terrorists across the globe. The Capitalist imperialists are about to take away your only weapon. Of course, the downside is, is that, if the third world suddenly has no weapon against a colonial occupation, then, why, one might ask, would we not occupy the third world? If Iraq was only 20 billion a year, there were few casualties, and pumping loads of oil, how many people would really care.

    Within our lifetimes, technology such as this will allow the first world to carve up the third. It is inevitable.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:We Just Won the War On Terror. by citizenr · · Score: 1

      dear American moron, the only "War On Terror" is in your head.

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    2. Re:We Just Won the War On Terror. by tjstork · · Score: 1

      dear American moron, the only "War On Terror" is in your head.

      Um, can you explain why me any American should feel the need to defend you Taiwanese from the "real" China? You can't defend yourselves, and China knows it.

      --
      This is my sig.
    3. Re:We Just Won the War On Terror. by citizenr · · Score: 1

      >>dear American moron, the only "War On Terror" is in your head.

      >Um, can you explain why me any American should feel the need to defend you Taiwanese from the "real" China? You can't defend
      >yourselves, and China knows it.

      you shouldn't "feel the need" nor stick your bloody nose in other people business - this is exactly why you the whole world hates you.

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    4. Re:We Just Won the War On Terror. by tjstork · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      you shouldn't "feel the need" nor stick your bloody nose in other people business - this is exactly why you the whole world hates you

      Actually, the world loves us. Everybody wants to be an American. Look at how many millions emigrate to the United States every year!

      As far as sticking our noses into other people's business, does that imply that you are Chinese and view American protection of Taiwan as some sort of "other people's business" If so, could you kindly answer the readers on this board exactly what business China has in Tibet? Or are you even allowed? If you are Chinese, and you won't answer that, then you can take your righteousness, arrogance, and exports, and shove them up your ass. China may have more people than the United States, and may someday have a greater economy, but the United States will always have enough nuclear weapons to kill all of you communist sons of bitches.

      Don't ever forget that.

      When I run for Senate in the United States, I will advocate the construction of enough nuclear weapons to exterminate humanity. If people want to attack the USA, we can and will be able to destroy the entire world.

      F--- you all!

      --
      This is my sig.
    5. Re:We Just Won the War On Terror. by citizenr · · Score: 1

      >When I run for Senate in the United States

      I thought you were running for President mister Guliani :)))

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
  22. Research by TurkeyBelly · · Score: 1

    That'll make it much easier to do academic research where they put people in MRI machines and see what happens in the brain when people are doing things like considering moral issues, or experiencing pain. Now more social things can be tracked where you're not bound by the confines of a small tube.

  23. Less Helium by maggard · · Score: 0

    Aside from "Kewl - can MRI more things!" (I used to work in museums - we luv being able to see inside stuff without taking it apart) this also stands to help with the helium shortage.

    One of the largest uses of helium is in MRI machines, and with the current shortage costs of helium are going up, dramatically. Less helium required, even if spread out amongst more MRI machines, should be good thing.

    --
    I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
    1. Re:Less Helium by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      Many people don't realize that helium is a limited resource. It's only source are pockets found with petroleum and natural gas, as a byproduct of radioactive decay. Once it is used it evaporates from the atmosphere.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    2. Re:Less Helium by jandoedel · · Score: 1

      Helium shortage? Just make some new helium then... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER#Reactor_overview/

  24. maybe a little bitter about this by jpfed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was recently charged $3000 for a CT scan. Talking to an Indian coworker, I found out that a CT scan in his country would've cost less than $50. So I guess I could've flown out to India, gotten the CT, and flown back, for less money than getting the CT in America.

    It's a good thing I did get that expensive modern medical advance in America, though, because of the high-quality analysis and follow-up I got from the clinic. In total, I got one sentence out of it- "Your intestines are a little constricted." I don't think they could provide that kind of advanced analysis in India with their cheap CT scans.

    I guess I'm wondering- are modern medical advances really as expensive as we're led to believe they are in America?

    1. Re:maybe a little bitter about this by kannibal_klown · · Score: 3, Funny

      To add insult to injury, apparently it's a growing trend to send the CT images electronically to India for a specialist to analyze.

    2. Re:maybe a little bitter about this by nido · · Score: 0, Troll

      I guess I'm wondering- are modern medical advances really as expensive as we're led to believe they are in America?

      The real advances in modern medicine are the cheap ones that actually treat the root causes of a problem. Nutrition, Osteopathic Manipulation, IV therapies (w/ vitamins, EDTA, H202, and others), Energy Medicine, etc.

      Most the other 'advances' can best be explained as 'profiteering' - clinics have to pay for for their $million+ MRI machine somehow, and the handful of cases a month where they're actually justified isn't going to pay the bills..

      See links on how healthcare became screwed up, read Dr. Davidson's testimonial pages for examples of conditions which respond well to Cranial Osteopathy, check out Donna Eden's system of Energy Medicine, and get yourself a copy of Dr. Reilly's Handbook for Health Through Drugless Therapy, and I'm sure you can easily get your intestine flowing freely again.

      --
      Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
      www.teslabox.com
    3. Re:maybe a little bitter about this by thanatos_x · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what's funny about this. He's telling the truth, which should easily overcome the 'insult to injury' quip.

      --
      I am not an expert. If I am misled in something, please correct me.
    4. Re:maybe a little bitter about this by Squalish · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IN GENERAL:
      Medical research happens when there's money behind the disease. Once the advance is made and commoditized for great loads of money to the first world (and the research is the main thing priced, not the build construction), it can be exported to the developing world and add value slightly to their firstworld sales numbers, for little extra effort.

      If the first world didn't exist, then the developing world wouldn't have the luxury of down-marketting - they would have to get by without the tech being developed, or with the tech being a lot more expensive (somewhere between firstworld and developing world price).

      There are of course specific contradictions to this, and the US pharma market has (like most aspects of the US economy) decided to spend more on advertising and profitability than original research...

      But in a hypothetical company that puts most money towards research - for a $1 pill to exist for the third world, it has to cost $0.75 to build (yay, profit) and it has to sell to Americans for $75. Otherwise, if they couldn't count on the US market, it would be available for $5 or $10 to the whole world. And if they knew that they couldn't sell enough to make the same return on investment... they wouldn't have developed the drug in the first place.

      It's a nuanced point, and so it will never be brought up in the public discourse, ever. The debate will be "Socialized medicine?! We have the best healthcare system evar! It's where rich third world dictators bring their kids," versus people who see the rest of the world not being bled dry by their medical establishments.

      It's kind of a reverse tragedy of the commons - the AIDs drugs are going to benefit lots of poor Africans if they are developed, because production cost is virtually nil. But they won't be developed unless they can generate a good return on (their large research) investment by charging the richest nations through the nose.

      --
      People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation
    5. Re:maybe a little bitter about this by Squalish · · Score: 1

      Of course, all this presupposes that you rely on the free market to generate medical research, for all its evils.

      --
      People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation
  25. radiation therapy use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the hottest technologies presently are combining linear accelerators for therapy use with imaging devices. The newest thing right now is taking a kilovoltage CT immediately before treating a patient. MRI can provide better imaging of soft tissue but presently such magnetic fields won't work with the megavoltage accelerators. This would be helpful so we don't have to do anymore blind shooting...

  26. You should just follow the Canadian example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pre-paid healthcare works. Don't buy into the media garbage. Several socialist countries have proven it works.

    1. Re:You should just follow the Canadian example by windsurfer619 · · Score: 1

      Ha! Here in Canada, the waiting list for an MRI is over 3 months! It's not uncommon for people to go to the United States and outright pay for one instead of waiting. And our government does not pay for these out-of-country tests.

    2. Re:You should just follow the Canadian example by arpad1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's why the Quebec Supreme Court decided that waiting for medical treatment until you die doesn't constitute medical treatment. Because socialized medicine works so well.

      Of course then there's the inherent unjustness and potential for criminal behavior of socialized medicine that seems to get just about no mindshare. If the average Canadian has to wait three months for an MRI, we can be quite sure the Prime Minister doesn't. How about the other members of the cabinet? Their spouses? How about the Prime Minister's security detail? Their spouses? Their children?

      --
      Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
  27. Re:We have determined that your brain configuratio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, I just used my last mod post :( Kudos

  28. Thank you for being a negativist by backslashdot · · Score: 1

    You realize there are workarounds and solutions for all the things you said?

    For one thing, you're already assuming that it is impossible for the machine to be able to tell the difference between tissue types and also to write good enough image analysis software to tell the difference between real tumors and false positives.

    If the software and hardware is good, the device would reduce the number of visits to the doctor.

    As for hypochondriacs, if false positives can be eliminated it would actually work against them .. because the scan would reduce the number of unnecessary doctor visits the hypochondriac makes. Not to mention make it easieer for the docs to tell them to piss off.

    As for missing a diagnosis .. the scanner can clearly state in bold flashing letters that it can only detect certain types of tumors and that it is not a subsititute for a regular doctor's visit. So that should limit the success of any suits. Think of all the crappy products out on the market right now that don't do shit. I dont see any of the neutraceutical manmufacturers getting sued. It's a balance of lives saved versus competent jruies/judicial system. I rather reform that than have premature deaths caused by lack of early detection.

    1. Re:Thank you for being a negativist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, yes, we could hypothetize a lot of sufficiently advanced technology (read: magic) that would solve these problems, determine whether there was a tumor, where it was located, and heck, lets just have it magically heal you while we're at it.

      You seem to be assuming the machines will be almost as good as a real doctor, which just isn't feasable with today's technology. You will always have false positives, unless you use such an ridiculous amount of safety margin that you can't detect anything. If the software could detect a false positives, it wouldn't be a false positives, now would it?
      In which situations would this avoid a trip to the doctor? As you say, it wouldn't be a substitute for a regular doctor's visit, but any benefit seems to involve using it as such.
      I'm going to pull numbers out of my ass here, and assume that you can get 90% accuracy for detecting a specific condition, like testicular cancer, and 30% for a full body check. That's pretty generous considering that I know of no software in use today that will say whether or not there is a tumor in a scan. Such poor accuracy is hardly even statistically significant.

    2. Re:Thank you for being a negativist by Hyperspite · · Score: 1

      He's also missing the fact that a hypochondriac won't care about the results of the machine's diagnostic unless it was positive. What the hypochondriac will do is look at the scan until he thinks he sees something that isn't there and then argue with the doctor over it. These machines would only make it worse.

  29. No by backslashdot · · Score: 2, Informative

    No. It can say "the machine was unable to detect any of the types of large solid tumors we can recognize".

    Do people sue pregnancy test kits if it tells them they weren't pregnant and they drank alcohol and the baby was born with problems? Or condom manufacturs for getting deadly diseases?

    If they do, they havent been very successful .. cause those products still exist on the market.

    Disclaimers. Use them.

    DISCLAIMER: The above post is not meant to encourage or discourage anyone from getting into the home MRI business. Author assumes no liability for failure of any home MRI ventures or investments. Your success may vary. Results not typical.

    1. Re:No by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Do people sue pregnancy test kits if it tells them they weren't pregnant and they drank alcohol and the baby was born with problems? Or condom manufacturs for getting deadly diseases?

      I don't have any references (in part due to the wonderful US judicial system that ensures that only lawyers can find out how the law has been interpreted with no free access to data online), but I'm sure the answer to all your questions is yes. In the US people sue for the most frivolous of reasons - if you actually have an arguable case it is guaranteed it will get litigated.

      If they do, they havent been very successful .. cause those products still exist on the market.

      Depends on how you define success. You call 1-800-SUE-M'ALL, the lawyer has you mail him the form that gives him 1/3rd of any settlement, and then the lawyer calls up the manufacturer and says that they'll go away for $10k. The lawyer makes $3k for a total of 25 minutes worth of work, and you get $7k for your "trouble". The company will settle just to not have to deal with the district court of Nowhere, MO and its plaintiff-leaning juries.

  30. idiot by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 0, Troll

    Well you could always go back to the 19th century and avoid hospitals if you don't like modern medical advances (which are quite expensive).

    I'd actually prefer to go back to the 1950s. By then we had penicillin, X-rays, sanitation, hygiene, anesthesia, and a health care system that cost us less than what we spent on food. I could do without the expensive gimmicky crap like MRIs (of which I have had several, all completely useless).

    1. Re:idiot by kmac06 · · Score: 1

      Uh...you could always choose not to have/pay for them then.

    2. Re:idiot by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      That assumes you can make an informed decision knowing whether or not they are covered by your insurance, and if they are, whether or not you can trust that your insurer won't come up with a flimsy pretext later on for denying the claim and sticking you with the bill.

    3. Re:idiot by kmac06 · · Score: 1

      I understand that can often be a tricky decision, but for this case, isn't the decision to have an MRI not exactly one you need to make quickly? I don't generally think of having an MRI or not as an on-the-spot decision.

    4. Re:idiot by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      I don't see it as an on-the-spot decision either but I also don't see why that's even relevant. So what if there's plenty of time to deliberate with bad information? If the doctor says it's necessary and the insurance company says it's covered (to the extent that they ever guarantee anything) then most people will have the procedure. That doesn't justify being jerked around after the fact on the basis of some stupid technicality.

      I have a chronic neurological disorder that causes me to wake up in an ER strapped to a gurney once or twice a year. (The U.S. health care system is designed to "disincentivize" you from having a condition like that.) On one of these ER visits, which insurance later refused to cover for some reason, I asked for a Tylenol to relieve a pounding headache- a mistake I'll never make again. They charged me eighteen dollars for a single tablet. Acetaminophen was invented in the 19th century.

    5. Re:idiot by kmac06 · · Score: 1

      OK I see what you're saying

  31. Won't someone... by Sergeant+Pepper · · Score: 1

    think of the giant superconducting magnets?

  32. Magnets powered by supercooled helium? by chris_sawtell · · Score: 1

    FTA: "The magnets ... draw most of their power from supercooled helium"
    What utter bull, When are the writers about scientific subjects going to go to school? This is knowledge I'd expect every Year 12 student to have so that they do not eject this kind of howler.

    Ditto, of course to the dim nitwits who took the iron things into the MRI scanning room. If the US is going to try to keep its preeminence as a world power it had better start building a few new schools, and pay the teachers sufficient to get good people to do the job.

    1. Re:Magnets powered by supercooled helium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA 'till the end... Correction: Aug. 20, 2005, Saturday: Because of an editing error, a front-page article yesterday about accidents involving magnetic resonance scanners misstated the way the magnets work. They are cooled by liquid helium to eliminate electrical resistance so that their magnetic fields persist indefinitely, not powered by liquid helium.

  33. What Technologies will Come from Small Cheap MRI? by Free_Trial_Thinking · · Score: 1

    I gave this issue some thought tonight. If a quality MRI machine costs say $100 and weighs less than 10 pounds, what new technologies would we see?

    I couldn't come up with very much. Maybe you can? Could you make a scanner that scans a whole book at once with an MRI, since it could take a 3D image of the insides of the book and then split it into pages with software? I guess it would have to detect locations where there is ink by looking for those molecules?

  34. Size and quality by stapedium · · Score: 1

    The linked abstract says they were able to acquire the images using low field strength because they used SQUIDS. The problem with this strategy is you trade a huge room with a large supercooled magnet for a large room that is magnetically shielded and smaller supercooled sensors. Once produced in quantity the cost and size will probably be about the same. With lower image quality for lower field strengths.
    The one advantage may be for people with magnetically sensitive implantable devices such as cochlear implants, defibrillators or older pacemakers.

    1. Re:Size and quality by calidoscope · · Score: 1
      Back in the early 1990's, the Quantum Design MPMS was selling for roughly 100k$, of which the SQUID and associated electronics was responsible for only a fraction of that amount. (The SQUIDs in TFA were built by QD) I would be very surprised if the cost of the SQUID's and associated electronics was more than a quarter of the cost of a superconducting MRI magnet.


      QD's SQUIDs were also used in Gravity Probe B.

      --
      A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
  35. A MRI in every home by schantz_2 · · Score: 1

    Sooner or later someone'll discover that a strong magnetic fields give you brain cancer, and why not?.. everything else does. And then those nifty personal MRI's will be placed in a landfill somewhere.

  36. Unfortunately... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, it's just a picture of the researcher's thumb.

  37. The Forbidden Planet had those scanners by Iowan41 · · Score: 1

    And was the precursor to Star Trek, and homage was paid to it with the purist ship on Mars in Enterprise.

    Cool!

  38. Brain by Whiteox · · Score: 1

    "The one-page paper shows sections of the first 3D brain image taken with the device." Who's brain was it?
    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  39. WTF is "MRI", expand in Summary next time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Medical Rim Imaging?

    (No I won't go look it up. I'm on a slow mobile access and hopping between sites is painful. Huge /. pages are easy as I can dive in and begin reading while the rest is still opening, but "doing a quick googling" takes almost a minute, most of it looking at a silly blank screen, before even the search gets going.

    And it's good form to expand your acronyms, especially one that is in the summary, the main topic of the article, and frequent in even TFS. There are too many millions of bloody re-used acronyms out there already. Thank you. No really, thank you.)

    1. Re:WTF is "MRI", expand in Summary next time by Hyperspite · · Score: 1

      Hate to rain on your parade, but MRI is a pretty common one. Maybe not as quite as common as FBI or some such, but most people would expect you to know it.

    2. Re:WTF is "MRI", expand in Summary next time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoops, looks like you forgot to make your post funny by putting in a hyperlink to goatse around "Medical Rim Imaging". Without that, your post just makes you look like a total idiot.

  40. why the discrep between you and parent by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 1

    assuming you are both right on the basic facts, why is there such a large disrepcancy in price ?
    For instance, the 3M cost - if we don't know what margin GE or Siemens is getting, we don't know how realistic that price is - maybe it only costs GE 500K to actually build the machine, so they could, if they wanted, sell it for 1 M...

    Or maybe india has a second hand, but still fully usable machine (your center -where did your last machine go ?)

    I don't know what the cost of 5oK refridgeration is, but i do know that liquid nitrogen is awfully cheap.

    1. Re:why the discrep between you and parent by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Liquid He is pretty expensive, although most of what you go through is LN2.

      The multi-million-dollar cost of an MRI sounds about right. I've seen research NMRs in the same price range just for the magnets. An NMR/MRI magnet needs to be very powerful, very uniform/stable, and in the case of an MRI it needs to fit a patient inside. That is a lot of superconductor wire. It is still a pretty exotic technology.

      Most likely the person claiming MRIs were only $50 in India was mistaken (perhaps they confused it with some other technique). Or it was out-of-pocket cost and not true cost. An MRI in the US probably only costs $50 or less if you look at out-of-pocket cost for an insured person. The insurance company on the other hand pays quite a bit more. If the Indian government subsidizes MRI tests then the price would obviously be lower to consumers. It doesn't change the actual cost, however.

    2. Re:why the discrep between you and parent by rapid_snail · · Score: 1

      The person referring to $50 cost in India was referring to CT scans, not MRI.
      MRI scans in India costs about Rs.7000 or ~175 USD on a 1.5 to 2.0 Tesla machine.

  41. Nice music? by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    The one I've got experience with (yearly) sounds like people with jackhammers working outside.

    1. Re:Nice music? by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it does sound like that, but I had headphones and my choice of radio stations to listen to while the racket was going on. My only mistake was once choosing rock music. Very hard to stay still while "Another One Bites The Dust" is playing.

  42. You need *informations* out of the picture. by DrYak · · Score: 1

    It could potentially mean that every doctor's office, even in poorer regions, could make an assessment with an MRI


    To make an assessment with an MRI you need to have a minimal level of detail to make conclusions about.
    Above a certain level of bluriness you miss all the interesting bits (presence of blood, etc.).
    With the current level of detail produced by this technique, the only thing you could safely assess is whether the patient has still his head present. Which isn't very useful.

    And what would be interesting is what level of detail are technically achievable, before hitting some hard limits of physics law.
    For exemple, higher magnetic fields usually yields higher resolutions, but you can't just crank up the field indefinitely, because above a certain threshold you loose contrast between the brain's grey and white matter : you get finer pixels from the machine but everything looks the same which defies the initial purpose. Also, higher field tend to be more difficult to be made homogeneous. Irregularity in the magnetic field results in distortions of the signal.

    A lot of similar limitation must probably exist in lower limits of field strength (I just didn't study them so can't give a lot of concrete exemple. I mainly worked with 3Telsa machines). The main issue would probably be that, MRI image are usually a compromise between the signal/noise ratio (among other). To get a sufficient resolution (where the finest detail you can see are more meaningful than the head present/absent status) on very low fields would seriously impart the SNR.
    Which is going to be worse on smaller magnetic fields. One of the reasons are, some of the timing parameters tend to be longer with lower fields. Thus the measures sample (the patient body part) is exposed for longer period of times to external factors that can disturb the process between the stimulation emission and the signal reading. Those will translate into more noise into the final image, limiting how much signal you can get with a given field and thus the maximal resolution you can hope to use before the resulting picture start to look like a snow storm.

    The authors of the article are trying to circumvent part of the problems using ultra sensitive antennas (Squids) and thus boost the SNR.

    Also, other technique could be used to increase the quality of the image, like imagery of the blood vessels - like stimulating the blood as it goes out of the hearth and then reading the signal at the brain level : because when you do this the blood is mostly the only thing emitting a signal, you get much less noise, and perhaps you could get clinically useful images (showing the permeability of blood vessel, to see if some did get blocked by cholesterol and blood clot - useful for distinguishing stroke and haemorrhage, for example - the exact kind of test where a quick imaging solution available at the doctors office may help)

    BTW: To other radiologist geeks around, from the last time we spoke about MRIs : As I said, the non ferromagnetic object (aluminium ruler) didn't fly inside the 3T machine.

    Note: If some physics geek would like to step in to give his opinion about improving image quality at low fields ?
    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]