![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Magnetic resonance imaging is working in my opinion is because of Iron Atoms in the blood that exists in the brain and the whole body. Your website is mentioning that the Hydrogen atoms in the water molecules in the human body is responsible for magnetic resonance imaging.
Dr. Fayyaz A. Lohar Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering
Why has so much science been stripped from article? Too much of this article reads like a dumbed-down pamphlet from a doctor's office. Having segregated the actual science, you have done the readers a disservice: ref: /info/en/?search=Physics_of_magnetic_resonance_imaging
The resulting article is shameful and unworthy of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendaEM ( talk • contribs) 06:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
It looks like discussions started between July 2009 and Dec 2009 are not here or in Archive 1. Rod57 ( talk) 19:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm currently preparing to a degree in diagnostic radiography and this article has been very useful. Thanks to all who worked on it.
One thing I would query though is the article's claim that MRI is harmless (See Application section). Everything I have read says that it is believed to be safe but that this has never been proven.
I will not edit the article as there are obviously much better qualified people than me to do so but if MRI has been proven to be safe then there should be a reference and if it has not then this sentence needs to be amended. GordyB 15:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The statement "There is no evidence for biological harm from even very powerful static magnetic fields." may be true but should be qualified imo. The source referenced is an article from 2004, citing a study from the 1980's where no biological harm was found in humans exposed (short term) to field strengths up to 3T, and the health of rats didn't seem affected after 10 weeks at 9.4T. The FDA currently allows up to 8T for clinical (short-term) use. Some studies saw modified cognitive function in brief exposures, and cell morphology in long exposures, which theoretically could lead to pathological changes, but still no harm was found. The latest confirmed data shows no harm in humans exposed to 9.4T for short durations. I propose replacing the statement with: "There is no evidence for biological harm in humans from short-term exposure to static magnetic fields up to 9.4T in strength." and updating the source: http://www.mrisafety.com/safety_article.asp?subject=229 -Mark Nelson 66.194.230.26 ( talk) 17:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Surely k-space was introduced by Mansfield and Grannell in 1973? The paper does not explicitly call the formalism k-space, but the maths is identical and the idea is clearly reciprocal space as used in crystalography. The Ljunggren paper is certainly a clear and helpful explanation, but the idea is older.
P. Mansfield and P. K. Grannell, NMR 'diffraction' in solids?, J. Phys. C.: Solid State Physics, Vol.6, L422-426, 1973. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.178.53.61 ( talk) 15:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedians. We appear to have two pages covering almost exactly the same content. To save dividing our effort and confusing readers, I suggest we merge 2D-FT NMRI and Spectroscopy into this article. What do you think? GyroMagician ( talk) 07:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
2D-FT NMR spectroscopy is not MRI, although the former can be combined with MRI to vastly improve the latter. The overlap is thus only partial and cannot be employed as a basis for a merger, as it is conceptually inconsistent. Thus the suggestions made by Mavrisa ( talk) are inappropriate for this subject matter. — comment added by Prisecar ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Please provide a reference to Vladislav Ivanov in a reliable secondary source preferably in English Brownturkey ( talk) 19:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the
Izvestia interview verifies that Ivanov says that he "defined the principles of a method and contained the layout of a device that’s called ‘magnetic resonance imaging equipment’", and that Lauterbur "was virtually using the design developed by Ivanov." However, what we lack are sufficient secondary sources that analyze and/or support Ivanov's claims. Till date we only have one sentence in an article translated from the Russian language journal Izmeritel’naya Tekhnika that says, "Ivanov in 1960 suggested that nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) should be used for the local examination of objects in magnetic field gradients." That is promising (aside: if Ivanov did indeed propose the use of magnetic gradients, he IMO would have a much stronger claim to the invention of MRI than Damadian) - but still too meager to include this
redflag claim in our article. Since the invention of MRI has been discussed by dozens (hundreds ?) of books and journal articles, and also examined (presumably) deeply by the Nobel committee, adding this claim based on the subjects own words and one throwaway sentence in a respectable, but relatively obscure, Russian journal would be
undue. As a tertiary source we should be reflecting the consensus of the most reliable secondary sources on the subject (even if they are wrong!), and they don't seem to have addressed Ivanov's claim.
Brownturkey, you mention a Nature paper. Can you expand on that ?
Abecedare (
talk)
00:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
It's a news item in VOL 426 p 375 (27 NOVEMBER 2003). It confirms that the claim was made and that the international scientific community is aware of it. It doesn't of course attempt to arbitrate on the claims of Damadian vs Mansfield vs Gabillard vs Carr Vs Ivanov vs Lauterbur etc - but neither does the text in our article. Brownturkey ( talk) 08:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Under this section, it appears that the "flair" in the chart is vandalism. I am not familiar with this topic and I am not sure if it is vandalism or not. Please correct if this is vandalism The Wo rld 14:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
seems to be a bad suggestion to me - pretty much no metal items can be in the same room as an MRI scanner, and my headphones certainly have metal... is there a tolerance, or should claustrophobics just grin and bear it? Missy Sunshine ( talk) 12:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Loeffler ( talk) 19:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I just had an MRI of my lower back yesterday morning and with the system they used, music was a complete waste of effort... the MRI machine was so noisy I couldn't hear the music anyway. I had no headset available to me, all I had was ear plugs and a panic button. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.131.22 ( talk) 13:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
In a discussion of basic physics, some wiki editor has wiki-vandalized the section with the "no cites" bar. The irony is that Bobo the Clown could put up an HTML 1.0 page with erroneous info about the workings of NMRI and this could count as a "reference", if the rest of this encyclopedia is anything to go by.
This kind of nonsense is an insult to everyone's intelligence. Some very knowledgeable people spent their good time explaining how the physics of NMRI works, and now I have to trip over WikiVandalism™ to read it? Uh-huh.
I'm curious which of the assertions in the first two sentences need a cite. That we're ugly bags of mostly water? That water consists of an oxygen molecule covalently bonded to two hydrogen molecules (I should cite myself, after all I performed water electrolysis in Life Sciences class in 7th grade), or that a hydrogen molecule is a proton? I suppose I should pity anyone who needs to take these facts on authority, and pity even more the dweeb who demands a reference (appeal to authority) on knowledge which is the common patrimony of humankind.
Keep it classy, Wikipedia. 198.212.141.100 ( talk) 03:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
"In most medical applications, protons (hydrogen atoms) in tissues ..." OK. So, we must have someone who can fix this absurdity. ExpatSalopian ( talk) 23:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
It seems that this page is larger than the 100 KB that WP:SIZERULE suggests is the point where an article almost certainly needs to be split. I think splitting would be justified and propose we make subarticles for:
Better names? Thoughts? Smocking ( talk) 17:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The major flaw with this article is that it is written like a textbook, and not like an encyclopedia entry. Long Te & Long Tr times? Who the hell cares? If you're a radiology/MRI person, you shouldn't be reading wikipedia in the first place as your primary source of information.
This whole article needs to be re written with the lay person in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.32.194.20 ( talk) 18:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, but cannot understand enough of that section of the article to make the changes you suggest. Oh, the irony.
Missy Sunshine (
talk)
12:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the article should be restructured. One way this could be organized is to match the structure of the article on computed tomography, another medical imaging technique whose article is much clearer. This would mean the contents like:
Deciwill ( talk) 20:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. I'm a layperson, but I could understand it. Please do not fall into the current wikipedia hysteria for dumbing everything down. Perhaps the dumbers-down are actually vandals? Written like a textbook is not a problem fo rme - it is a plus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.210.51.189 ( talk) 20:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Currently, the page says:
Is this correct? Clearly dB's are on a logarithmic scale (+3dB => doubling the SPL), but I thought human loudness perception was also logarithmic? This would mean +3.0 dB SPL produces some increase in perceived loudness, but doubling the SPL (in dB) would double the apparent loudness. Am I completely wrong here? GyroMagician ( talk) 07:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
As many have said, this article is a complex shambles. Over the next little while I intend to incrementally improve it - in many cases by trimming some of the over-complex information. I'll proceed with caution, but would appreciate it if the subject experts watching could keep an eye on my changes - to ensure that they're not misleading or incorrect. Snori ( talk) 18:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Deciwill ( talk) 11:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. I'm a layperson, but I could understand it. Please do not fall into the current wikipedia hysteria for dumbing everything down. Perhaps the dumbers-down are actually vandals? I'd agree with a simple intro followed by detailed technical explanations; but we don't want to lose the technical detail. What would be the point of the entry if it were to go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.210.51.189 ( talk) 20:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
This comes up from time-to-time, and we still don't have a good history section. I've just undone a pair of edits from anon IPs. No, it wasn't Bottomley, or Damadian, or any other single person who invented the modern MR machine. I would expect a history to include Nottingham, Aberdeen, Oxford, Zürich (can you spot my British bias?). But there are many others. It's an interesting story - it would be good to at least list some of the major points. Is anyone game? GyroMagician ( talk) 00:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
GyroMagician, no, I'm not up for that, not qualified. But: It seems that the Paul Lauterbur material in the first paragraph is out-of-place chronologically and should be moved to the middle of the fourth paragraph. Thoughts? Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV ( talk) 03:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The entire section on MRI history and the 2003 Nobel Prize should be removed. It's biased, commercialized, and historically wrong. The references given are partly attributed to the wrong authors. The entire article is unprofessional and messy. Someone should re-write it completely. Check the website of the Nobel Prize and www.magnetic-resonance.org. The first scientist who used NMR in tissue and medical applications was Erik Odeblad in Stockholm in 1954/55. Paul C. Lauterbur (Stony Brook, NY, USA) invented MR imaging in 1971 (first scientific publication in Nature in 1973). Peter Mansfield (Nottingham, UK) could share the Nobel Prize for MR imaging in 2003 with Lauterbur for "the further development" of the method. Raymond Damadian has commercialized Odeblad's and Lauterbur's ideas. His scientific claims are wrong and not reproducible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.169.84.114 ( talk) 16:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Anonymous, well, in lieu of rewriting the entire article, for now, it seems that the Lauterbur material in the first paragraph is out-of-place chronologically and should be moved to the middle of the fourth paragraph. Does anyone specifically object to this? If not, I'll try my hand at that one change. Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV ( talk) 20:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The Lauterbur material is now in chronological order. Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV ( talk) 02:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I then added citations for Carr's Harvard PhD thesis, and to p. 253 of vol. 1 of the 1996 Encyclopedia of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance for the 1952 date of Carr's first 1D image. Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV ( talk) 03:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I just discovered the page MRI of brain and brain stem - it was recently been added to Template:Medical imaging. I don't think 'MRI of B&BS' adds anything that isn't already discussed here. Shall we simply delete it? GyroMagician ( talk) 08:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that the history section in this article has been greatly expanded. Whoever did the editing did a pretty good job. However, if I could make one suggestion, please let me explain. Reading through the section, I notice that there is a lot of historical dates, etc that are not put in chronological order. It begins with the history of the MRI in the early 1970's and then closer to the bottom of the section, it then talks about Herman Carr's contributions in the 1950s. So with that said and if there are no objections, can we please put the history section in its correct chronological order? The way it is right now, it is difficulat to tell who did what or contributed first. Yoganate79 ( talk) 20:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have a source for Ariel S. Orasud (see recent edits in the history section)? A quick Google shows a single link to this page. While there is a world beyond Google, it's a little suspicious. GyroMagician ( talk) 07:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
This is one of our movies for possible inclusion:
Martin.uecker ( talk) 17:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
This section has already been flagged as overly focused on the United States, but perhaps we can discuss it a bit and get things straightened out. It looks like someone added some info about France, but it's not clearly written and a bit political. Does anybody know if the 150 euro cost refers to the upfront cost to the patient, or the actual incurred cost of the exam? At a minimum the spelling and grammar need to be cleaned up, but I'm not entirely sure what's being said. As for the rest, I don't really see why billing practices or cost-to-patient are relevant to this article. That belongs in a discussion of health insurance systems, not in an article about a diagnostic procedure. Perhaps it would be better just to discuss the machine cost and possibly mention that the number of MRI machines per-capita is often used as a metric for gauging the level of development and affluence (among other things) of healthcare systems in various countries/regions. Opinions? Akigawa ( talk) 21:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
DR. Walter c. Caldwell and I duplcated the invention at Iowa State College in 1950! Surely this history should mention Varian and the Prof from Stanford!
Richard W. Towle, a good Physicist and Engineer. dick178@gmail.com 99.152.23.13 ( talk) 06:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Do we really need this long discussion? Martin.uecker ( talk) 04:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
It's primarily known for this, but it is far from its only use - should the opening sentence not reflect this? 131.111.53.24 ( talk) 13:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I just added an "indications" section in the safety section. This procedure deserves a stand-along indications section with an overview of when MRI is typically used in healthcare. I started a small section in safety because of a particular side effect of its use in healthcare, with that being that MRI is often overused. I wanted to keep this section short but I do not immediately have the best source for what I started. Many scholarly papers say something to the effect of "MRI is overused in this case; first use X instead..." but I do not have an overview of the scope of overuse in unrelated fields. I am thinking of making a general overuse of procedures article, probably with an MRI section, but I am not there yet. I think that I added enough information for now, but I have other ideas for where to take this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
No mention of Quantitative structural MRI for early detection of Alzheimer’s disease. 2010, neither the technique or the application. - Rod57 ( talk) 16:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I just found and added a a URL for Sijbers 1996 - [4] What I can't find is anything on the site (University of Antwerp Vision Lab) is public domain (despite it being publicly accessible on the Internet..) The URL location might also change - but then, that's a problem Wikipedia has with any external link.
Is this link to a publicly accessible copy of a source paper appropriate - generally, and this source one specifically?
Jimw338 ( talk) 14:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
After receiving an MRI today I had an increased level of stimulation, feelings of being solid/ fully in my body & a strong centered/focused feeling with high levels of jubilation. I felt almost like I could burst from excitement. The feelings have carried on for a few hours now, but I notice when I get distracted by the computer or other menial tasks that my energy returns to semi-normal levels (still higher than normal), but then when i disconnect & focus fully on reality I am much stronger again (seemingly due to the mri). It is possible to build a magnetic field in between your hands by moving them back and forth slowly. The MRI felt like it was doing this to my whole body. I had to mentally control the fluctuating field at one point so that it (the magnetic field being built between my body & the machine) didn't go out of control & dissipate/ become un-graspabale (as is experienced when building the field in between your hands when you move your hands too quickly or too far apart after the field has been built up strong enough to feel). I was able to keep the field balanced until the end of the mri, at which point it felt like the whole energy field sucked into me (around the neck chakra i think).Most of the mri modes felt like they were charging me up, but the final mode is what really did it, where it was fluctuating quicker & quicker. It was a great experience & I am very interested to know more. I have never messed with magnets for healing, but know that some natural health experts use powerful magnets regularly. I have never tried such and was wondering what anyone thinks about my experience. Thanks - I had a thorasic MRI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.131.252 ( talk) 01:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
As has been commented above this page reads like a textbook and not an encyclopaedia. I have attempted to organize the sections into a more logical order. I've also added near the beginning the clinical indications for MR - as this page is too heavily weighted towards physics than medicine.
Regarding the physics - there is a fine line between making it accessible and losing scientific accuracy. I have made the description of the physics aspect much more concise in all the sections that refer to Main Articles elsewhere on Wikipedia.
The Specialist Applications section is also is need of editing as this contains many research-oriented niche techniques that are not relevant to an encyclopedia.
threetesla 13:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doregan ( talk • contribs)
This article uses the acronym "PMRI". What is it? Is it the same as the "pMRI" mentioned in the " Brain and Ageing Research Program" article? -- DavidCary ( talk) 16:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
A controversial article on genotoxic effects was published earlier last year and has recently been cited on this page (Impact of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging on human lymphocyte DNA integrity - Fiechter et al). This has been heavily criticized by several groups whose responses are on the European Heart Journal website. I have removed a statement implying that MR causes cancers at half the rate as that of CT - as this was not what any of the papers have said. The section on genotoxic effects is important but may need putting in greater context and reflect the considerable uncertainty of whether these effects are harmful or simply transient and of no significance.
-- Doregan ( talk) 17:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Doregan - The sentence in question did not state that MR causes cancers at half the rate as that of CT, but I can see how it could have been interpreted as to imply that. So I accept that the part of the sentence that talks about cancer should be left out. However, the fact that CT and MRI each induce double-stranded breaks at comparable levels is extremely relevant to the topic of the section. As such, I'm about to add a quote from a paper by Knuuti et al. which acknowledges this point, as well as the uncertainty over whether these effects are of any clinical significance. (And yes, the Fiechter et al. study is controversial, but is certainly not the first or only study to document genotoxic effects associated with MRI, so I don't think it's unreasonable to include it.) Gzabers ( talk) 18:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The section on acoustic noise states: "As the switching is typically in the audible frequency range, the resulting vibration produces loud noises (clicking or beeping). This is most marked with high-field machines[68] and rapid-imaging techniques in which sound pressure levels can reach 120 dB(A) (equivalent to a jet engine at take-off),[69] and therefore appropriate ear protection is essential for anyone inside the MRI scanner room during the examination.[70]"
The section on claustrophobia and discomfort states: "Despite being painless,"
These contradict one another. 120 db is far above the pain threshold. 120 db is far more than enough to incapacitate some of us, even with ear protection and distance. 96.231.17.143 ( talk) 19:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys! This page was very informative but I just had one suggestion. Psychology is a very important branch of science studied today. The section titled, "Neuroimaging", does not mention using the MRI to diagnose psychological disorders. I believe it is a crucial part of the neuroimaging function of MRI. I inserted a sentence about psychology and MRI.
MRI is the investigative tool of choice for neurological cancers as it is more sensitive than CT for small tumors and offers better visualization of the posterior fossa. The contrast provided between grey and white matter makes it the optimal choice for many conditions of the central nervous system including demyelinating diseases, dementia, cerebrovascular disease, infectious diseases and epilepsy. [2] Since many images are taken milliseconds apart, it shows how the brain responds to different stimuli; researchers can then study both the functional and structural brain abnormalities in order to diagnose most psychological disorders. [3] MRI is also used in MRI- guided stereotactic surgery and radiosurgery for treatment of intracranial tumors, arteriovenous malformations and other surgically treatable conditions using a device known as the N-localizer. [4] [5] [6] [7] GabyMartell ( talk) 07:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Magnetic resonance imaging. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Edward_Mills_Purcell
"Edward Mills Purcell (August 30, 1912 – March 7, 1997) was an American physicist who shared the 1952 Nobel Prize for Physics for his independent discovery (published 1946) of nuclear magnetic resonance in liquids and in solids"
This information is notable for its exclusion from this article. Magnetic Resonance imaging technology had a history prior to its use in medical diagnostic imaging which included the award of an earlier Nobel Prize in physics Danshawen ( talk) 00:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)danshawen
Someone (u:Lowoxygen) added a fair amount of content to the lead, repeatedly and somewhat incorrectly referencing the Boltzmann distribution for alpha and beta spin states in the Pauli formalism, that is taught in first-year undergraduate chemistry classes, among other extraneous and half-correct information. As is, the 'direction of the spins'... really it's the angle of precession. I'm not sure if it is best to have a primer on the physics of MRI in the lead, beyond 'radio waves and magnetic fields', but if that information is presented, it should at least be closer to accuracy. I will work on it myself when I get some time. I just wanted to give a heads-up here first. - 137.53.91.235 ( talk) 23:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Fully agree with the above - just came to this article for the first time and the second paragraph does not give a encyclopaedic description 94.7.245.51 ( talk) 22:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
its cool — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.168.179 ( talk) 17:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Magnetic resonance imaging. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
It's a fairly rare condition and I uploaded a picture of it here :
If someone wants to use it somewhere in this article go ahead. Bratgoul ( talk) 21:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Magnetic resonance imaging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Magnetic resonance imaging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/object_jun00.html?c=y&page=2{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.cpl.uh.edu/files/publications/conf_paper_videos/c66.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Magnetic resonance imaging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.goingfora.com/radiology/mri.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
On reading the article on MRI, I could not find a description of the machine that produces MRI. It was my interest in the machine that led me to look up MRI in the first place and I was disappointed that the machine was not described. Roger Fullerton Email: 182.239.128.37 ( talk) 03:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)rogerfullerton@ozemail.com.au
A scientific journal on the subject says: Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is the first international multidisciplinary journal encompassing physical, life, and clinical science investigations as they relate to the development and use of magnetic resonance imaging. This article is not right in stating in the first sentence that this is exclusively a medical phenomenon. This is not the first time this problem is pointed out in this talk page. -- Ettrig ( talk) 21:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
i agree with Ettrig the article seems to make no mention of the psychology/neuroscience reaserch uses of mri. do you know how many reaserch papers have been written inthese fields as well as other humanities fields (sociology, anthropology, ect.) ? not one of these fields are even mentioned.
another concern i have is the lack of a section on MRI techniques, like FMRI ( "mri video" ) and DTI (used mainly to image white matter in the brain)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)