Remix clone Hacker News

Medicine: first, do no harm.

Why not use MRIs since they skip the problem entirely?

Don’t say cost or supply. That’s just because CT scans, misguidedly, have more demand. More demand for MRIs would unlock savings from scale.

▲

qgin 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

You can do a brain CT to detect a stroke in about 5 minutes. An MRI takes 30-60 minutes. Both useful but in emergency medicine you need the speed.

▲

odyssey7 4 days ago | parent [-]

Drive more demand for MRIs and they’ll get faster too

▲

ChocolateGod 4 days ago | parent [-]

They'll always be slower than CT scans because physics.

	▲	odyssey7 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Is the theoretical physical speed limit higher or lower than what is relevant for most clinical use cases?

▲

itishappy 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

CT scans are better in a lot of ways. They're faster, higher resolution, and sensitive to different stuff than MRIs.

▲

odyssey7 5 days ago | parent [-]

Radiographer: “MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) creates detailed images of the inside of the body using strong magnetic fields and radio waves, rather than X-rays. MRI is/was the holy grail for medical imaging professionals. Arguably the coolest images come from MRI”

https://radiographermedia.substack.com/p/x-ray-vs-ct-vs-mri

	▲	itishappy 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		The coolest images come from MRI. Unquestionably.

▲

enjoytheview 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In my case, I had a lung issue and CT scans are more sensitive to air being where it shouldn't be. At least two of the 5 ct scans could probaly just have been x-rays tho.

▲

readthenotes1 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You can get an ultra fast CT scan and to a video of blood flow through your heart arteries.

I never saw that available via MRI.