MRI.

If we had gotten our heads out of the sand on pushing CT scans as the answer, years ago we might have progressed further on other tech too.

E.g., photons: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-06-scientists-entire-hum...

▲

iancmceachern 4 days ago | parent [-]

Yeah but that's different. It's great for soft tissue (that has water which can be vibrated by the magnetic field) buy less great for things like bone. Hence why CTs are still used. Also, the magnetic field makes it so things like intraoperative imaging is very difficult.

	▲	odyssey7 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		When bone is what needs attention, you can use conventional x-rays in all but specialist cases. A single x-ray image is typically far less radiation than a whole CT scan. And yes, you can still see bone in an MRI. A related question is, how well can you see soft tissue in a CT scan? CT scans are routinely used to diagnose soft tissue problems, where they are the wrong tool for the job: an MRI would be more ideal. CT scans in these situations expose the patient to avoidable cancer risks while compromising the level of insight provided to the medical provider. Interoperative imaging is another specialist use case. The need for CT scans in specialist situations speaks to the failure to develop alternatives with lower cancer risks. Also, the need to use a CT scan in certain situations does not mean that the CT scans should be used in other situations.