MRI is mathematical voodoo even when it's working - it's easy to fool yourself at any of several stages in the process. "New scanner gives 10x improvement in detail, shows amazing and unexpectedly simple result" is just screaming for verification.
But it needs it obviously enough and the claim is interesting enough that further verification (or falsification) should happen soonish, as research timescales go.
In fact, this group has already done very detailed validation in cat brains: in-vivo MR imaging followed by ex-vivo staining+microscopy for validation :
It is good to hear this, I had my doubts but no experience anywhere near MRI reading. Looking at those colourful tubes, it is not in the least bit obvious how much of it is pure modelling and how much is cleaned-up scanner output.
"New scanner gives 10x improvement in detail, shows amazing and unexpectedly simple result" is a pretty punchy-sounding headline, too. They should go with that next time!
Comments
MRI is mathematical voodoo even when it's working - it's easy to fool yourself at any of several stages in the process. "New scanner gives 10x improvement in detail, shows amazing and unexpectedly simple result" is just screaming for verification.
But it needs it obviously enough and the claim is interesting enough that further verification (or falsification) should happen soonish, as research timescales go.
In fact, this group has already done very detailed validation in cat brains: in-vivo MR imaging followed by ex-vivo staining+microscopy for validation :
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2789885/
It is good to hear this, I had my doubts but no experience anywhere near MRI reading. Looking at those colourful tubes, it is not in the least bit obvious how much of it is pure modelling and how much is cleaned-up scanner output.
"New scanner gives 10x improvement in detail, shows amazing and unexpectedly simple result" is a pretty punchy-sounding headline, too. They should go with that next time!