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."
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
Another company, Vista Clara, is using a novel form of ULF MRI to map groundwater.
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!
Hopefully this will also put an end to those pesky MRI accidents. Not that they're common, but still, those things aren't toys.
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.
Please help metamoderate.
Very nice. The images are still very blurry (resolution 81×61×11), and the detectors, at 37mm, are big, but it's a start.
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.
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)
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.
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..
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).
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.
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?
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.
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
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?
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!
No. It can say "the machine was unable to detect any of the types of large solid tumors we can recognize".
.. cause those products still exist on the market.
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
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.
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).
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.
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 ]