|
|
|
|
|
by sitkack
762 days ago
|
|
There is an opinion piece in the same issue that agrees with you. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp0670 > This machine costs a fraction of current clinical scanners, is safer, and needs no costly infrastructure to run (2). Although low-field machines are not capable of yielding images that are as detailed as those from high-field clinical machines, the relatively low manufacturing and operational costs offer a potential revolution in MRI technology as a point-of-care screening tool. I don't think this machine is being billed as replacement to high-field machines. |
|
Countries where health regulation is less developed are likely to see misrepresentation where this form of MRI will be equated to full-field MRI by snake oil salesmen.