[scratcheee]

MRIs are fundamentally expensive. Yes we can bring the price down a bit, and we can set more money aside for them, but they’ll always be limited by their price.

Even if this technique is much worse (I can certainly believe it is) the price might allow uses that would never be practical with MRI even with the best financial support. For example, ultrasound might be viable for use in GPs or small medical facilities which could never dream of justifying an MRI machine.

[jmount]

Why would they remain fundamentally expensive? It is a fixed machine (so eventually you recoup the investment) and running consumes nothing other than electricity and a paper gown. MRIs cost under $200 in Japan.

[lostlogin]

> $200

This makes more sense than the comment elsewhere here that says $50.

My guess: It would be a basic scan with minimal sequences and low quality at that price.

[BobbyTables2]

With insurance in the US they’re $750 each… As in elbow and wrist on the same arm count separately…

[byw]

Is $200 close to what it costs the hospital, or after subsidies?

[js4ever]

$200 is the cost for the hospital, they "resell" it for $750-1500 mostly paid by insurance

[robbiep]

The methods described in the main article refer specifically to neurovascular imaging. In order to have a higher resolution, they’re making use of microbubbles (which need to be prepared and injected just prior to imaging).

There is no world where vascular imaging with a methodology like this is better than what I can do today in a GP clinic with a handheld GE or butterfly (or similar) US probe for anything that matters:

- for dvts and thrombus I can already image them

- if it’s in the brain the last thing that is useful for you to do is fuck around in a small clinic when you should be getting to a major tertiary centre as soon as possible

[throwaway81523]

They are claiming to want to detect CTE which normally is only diagnosable in an autopsy, I thought. Can current MRI do that? Right now we get former NFL players offing themselves with gunshots to the chest, intentionally leaving the brain intact for postmortem scanning, so posterity can figure out what was wrong with them. It's painful to think about.

[robbiep]

My impression isn’t that they are trying to improve CTE imaging (did it say that in the article?!) but somehow approach the resolution of being able to run the blood flow data through a black box so they can demonstrate what the occipital cortex is processing. I mean, that’s literally the first part of the article?

Can MRI/CT demonstrate CTE.

Well, like a lot of things which as alzheimers, that is still a pathological diagnosis for the most part, to the best of my knowledge (not post mortem scanning but out some brain tissue on a slide), but this belies the general fact that getting the tissue diagnosis is really not that important to anyone except a pedant, because yes MRI will show changes in grey/white matter differentiation and size compared to age and sex weighted cohort; and CT will show similar; and in fact it is the history and examination that practically matter to both the patients and their family.

So while it’s nice to have a totally 100% bulletproof ‘diagnosis’ for labelling purposes, practically on history and exam it’s not going to change how they are managed or what they and their family do say to day; given that both CTE and basically any of the dementias don’t have any treatment associated with them, and the current neuro imaging we have can deliver much higher resolution than what this is promising anyway (I mean even CT angio, and it’s not using ‘advanced imaging processes’ to create data out of noise)

[thaw13579]

Yes totally, and ultrasound already does wonders in that regard. It's a good strategy to focus on the specific use cases that match the strengths of the tech. I think MRI will be useful in validating and mapping out those cases.