Hacker News Reader

Comment by enjoytheview | Hacker News Reader

So 0.1% extra lifetime risk for every CT scan, I guess I went from 40% lifetime risk to 40.5, I guess I'll keep not drinking, not smoking and not being obese to help with the statistics.

View on HN

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.

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.

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

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

Is the theoretical physical speed limit higher or lower than what is relevant for most clinical use cases?

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

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

The coolest images come from MRI. Unquestionably.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com