![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Both links that "prove" that Mt. Sinai and Geneve had the first PET MRI are dead. Given that this "first" is featured very prominently in the article, it would be good to find other references or to move it to some other location in the article.
Moreover, there are other sites that had a PET MRI scanner operational in 2010: http://www.imetum.tum.de/research/magnetic-resonance-imaging/forschung/pet-mri/?L=1
109.193.196.122 ( talk) 22:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC) BM
I've started to tidy up this article, but it's still a bit of a mess. It reads more like a selection of snippets from sales brochures, rather than an encyclopaedic article. My time is rather limited, so I'm writing this here as a reminder to myself, or some pointers for anyone else who fancies having a go. These are still missing from the article, in no particular order:
GyroMagician ( talk) 13:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I've added a fair amount of editing and also some citations to the Citation Needed requests in the article. With that said, and as a question, I feel all new technology will sound like a "sales brochure" if the reader is unaware of the validity of the claims and prior to the common knowledge of the evidence. I'm not sure where to draw the line on my contributions from the perspective of the proof available as opposed to the discussion of the active ongoing research of this new technology. Leaving citation needed is a good warning flag, in my opinion, as I have now provided some to the previous entries I made. But then I would also suggest removal of items that are doubted should only be made with evidence (citation) to the contrary. But this is the beauty of WIKI and discussion. That is why I have added the citations I have and I hope it helps to keep the excitement of this obviously very new technology clearly on track, as mentioned in the multiple research publications I have linked. Even the FDA is excited about this technology, but the evidence is certainly not in yet (and it won't be for another decade at least), so I agree that the the sparkle of the references may leave some skeptical. If it is suggested or desired by anyone on this talk page, I will limit my input to statements that I can back up, going forward; regardless of what I know is occuring (IE., Ion therapy research). I am used to the products I work with taking many, many years prior to becoming commonplace or acceptance by the industry (and usually, even longer for insurance reimbursement :) ) along with tons of debate along the way. The debate usually leads to a much better overall public benefit and product, but it is a very, very slow method of spreading knowledge.
Although I didn't add them to the article I will simply respond (in order) to the above mention of missing information with my own information, as there is certainly a fair amount of discussion on these topics in the industry presently, and this can all be considered my opinion as opposed to fact by many people:
Kkadams115 ( talk) 19:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:PET/CT which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 06:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
-- 70.50.148.122 ( talk) 12:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Positron emission tomography–magnetic resonance imaging. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Moved to PET-MRI. See policy-based support that has not been effectively rebutted by opposing rationales, so the general agreement is to title this article with the commonname abbr. Seems that sources use the hyphen rather than the endash when abbreviated. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! ( nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 21:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Positron emission tomography–magnetic resonance imaging → PET-MR – Change to the more common and simple name. No one would use the full "Positron emission tomography–magnetic resonance imaging" to refer to this technique unless specifically spelling out the definition, likely to a technical audience. Most patients will hear about or be told they are going into a PET-MR (or perhaps PET-MRI) machine, as they would be told they are having a PET scan or MR scan. Even amongst a technical audience the full name would be rarely used. This would also bring this article in line with the very similar PET-CT (matching this article is also why I would suggest PET-MR rather than PET/MR, which I think better indicates the two are used together, rather than as alternatives) Beevil ( talk) 11:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasu よ! 20:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasu よ! 20:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The combination of PET and MRI was first proposed in 1991 by R. R. Raylman. [1]
@ 157.182.105.1: Thanks for the page reference, I have since read this section of the thesis and am still unconvinced that this sentence should be included. This is a primary source which doesn't in itself claim, or even suggest, that it is the first proposal for a combined PET-MR scanner. A secondary source which attributes the idea to Raylman would be much more convincing and suitable. Admittedly, I haven't come across an earlier claim, or a credible secondary source to dispute this, but I don't think that means one doesn't exist, and there's a good chance such sources would be offline. I have come across this patent, [2] filed in 1989, for a combined PET-MR system (achieved differently, but that's besides the point), which further detracts from the claim that this thesis represents the first proposed PET-MR. Without better references, I still think this sentence should be removed. Beevil ( talk) 12:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
References
@ Islesonfire: Beevil ( talk) 16:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
How does a chapter entitled: "Combined PET-MRI Scanner" (page 162 of the thesis) not demonstrate a mention of the combination of the two modalities in 1991? If you read the section you will see that it describes designs of PET-MRI similar to the ones first built.
Why don't you want to give credit where it belongs to Mr. Raylmam?
As I said before, we are a group of retired UofM faculty that monitor the web to be sure that former Michigan students/faculty receive deserved credit. This webpage is on our monitor list.
As far as secondary references go, we have checked and virtually none of the other references on this page have secondary references. In fact, the ref. 2 is to a poorly written chapter in a book, not what one would call a scientific reference
Note that the comment has been changed that the concept of PET-MRI combination was mentioned in a 1991 thesis, not the first mention. Go Blue!
Marah would approve!!! Islesonfire ( talk) 18:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Both links that "prove" that Mt. Sinai and Geneve had the first PET MRI are dead. Given that this "first" is featured very prominently in the article, it would be good to find other references or to move it to some other location in the article.
Moreover, there are other sites that had a PET MRI scanner operational in 2010: http://www.imetum.tum.de/research/magnetic-resonance-imaging/forschung/pet-mri/?L=1
109.193.196.122 ( talk) 22:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC) BM
I've started to tidy up this article, but it's still a bit of a mess. It reads more like a selection of snippets from sales brochures, rather than an encyclopaedic article. My time is rather limited, so I'm writing this here as a reminder to myself, or some pointers for anyone else who fancies having a go. These are still missing from the article, in no particular order:
GyroMagician ( talk) 13:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I've added a fair amount of editing and also some citations to the Citation Needed requests in the article. With that said, and as a question, I feel all new technology will sound like a "sales brochure" if the reader is unaware of the validity of the claims and prior to the common knowledge of the evidence. I'm not sure where to draw the line on my contributions from the perspective of the proof available as opposed to the discussion of the active ongoing research of this new technology. Leaving citation needed is a good warning flag, in my opinion, as I have now provided some to the previous entries I made. But then I would also suggest removal of items that are doubted should only be made with evidence (citation) to the contrary. But this is the beauty of WIKI and discussion. That is why I have added the citations I have and I hope it helps to keep the excitement of this obviously very new technology clearly on track, as mentioned in the multiple research publications I have linked. Even the FDA is excited about this technology, but the evidence is certainly not in yet (and it won't be for another decade at least), so I agree that the the sparkle of the references may leave some skeptical. If it is suggested or desired by anyone on this talk page, I will limit my input to statements that I can back up, going forward; regardless of what I know is occuring (IE., Ion therapy research). I am used to the products I work with taking many, many years prior to becoming commonplace or acceptance by the industry (and usually, even longer for insurance reimbursement :) ) along with tons of debate along the way. The debate usually leads to a much better overall public benefit and product, but it is a very, very slow method of spreading knowledge.
Although I didn't add them to the article I will simply respond (in order) to the above mention of missing information with my own information, as there is certainly a fair amount of discussion on these topics in the industry presently, and this can all be considered my opinion as opposed to fact by many people:
Kkadams115 ( talk) 19:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:PET/CT which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 06:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
-- 70.50.148.122 ( talk) 12:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Positron emission tomography–magnetic resonance imaging. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Moved to PET-MRI. See policy-based support that has not been effectively rebutted by opposing rationales, so the general agreement is to title this article with the commonname abbr. Seems that sources use the hyphen rather than the endash when abbreviated. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! ( nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 21:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Positron emission tomography–magnetic resonance imaging → PET-MR – Change to the more common and simple name. No one would use the full "Positron emission tomography–magnetic resonance imaging" to refer to this technique unless specifically spelling out the definition, likely to a technical audience. Most patients will hear about or be told they are going into a PET-MR (or perhaps PET-MRI) machine, as they would be told they are having a PET scan or MR scan. Even amongst a technical audience the full name would be rarely used. This would also bring this article in line with the very similar PET-CT (matching this article is also why I would suggest PET-MR rather than PET/MR, which I think better indicates the two are used together, rather than as alternatives) Beevil ( talk) 11:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasu よ! 20:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasu よ! 20:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The combination of PET and MRI was first proposed in 1991 by R. R. Raylman. [1]
@ 157.182.105.1: Thanks for the page reference, I have since read this section of the thesis and am still unconvinced that this sentence should be included. This is a primary source which doesn't in itself claim, or even suggest, that it is the first proposal for a combined PET-MR scanner. A secondary source which attributes the idea to Raylman would be much more convincing and suitable. Admittedly, I haven't come across an earlier claim, or a credible secondary source to dispute this, but I don't think that means one doesn't exist, and there's a good chance such sources would be offline. I have come across this patent, [2] filed in 1989, for a combined PET-MR system (achieved differently, but that's besides the point), which further detracts from the claim that this thesis represents the first proposed PET-MR. Without better references, I still think this sentence should be removed. Beevil ( talk) 12:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
References
@ Islesonfire: Beevil ( talk) 16:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
How does a chapter entitled: "Combined PET-MRI Scanner" (page 162 of the thesis) not demonstrate a mention of the combination of the two modalities in 1991? If you read the section you will see that it describes designs of PET-MRI similar to the ones first built.
Why don't you want to give credit where it belongs to Mr. Raylmam?
As I said before, we are a group of retired UofM faculty that monitor the web to be sure that former Michigan students/faculty receive deserved credit. This webpage is on our monitor list.
As far as secondary references go, we have checked and virtually none of the other references on this page have secondary references. In fact, the ref. 2 is to a poorly written chapter in a book, not what one would call a scientific reference
Note that the comment has been changed that the concept of PET-MRI combination was mentioned in a 1991 thesis, not the first mention. Go Blue!
Marah would approve!!! Islesonfire ( talk) 18:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)