Talk:PET-MRI

First PET MRI

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

Earliest mention of combining PET and MRI is in https://www.proquest.com/docview/303945199. Check it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islesonfire (talk • contribs) 17:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Attention (still) needed

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:

• A discussion comparing sequential (Philips) to true simultaneous PET/MR
• Interactions between PET and MR systems
• Detectors: why classic photomultipliers don't work in a magnetic field, avalanche photodiodes, silicon photomultipliers
• Better localisation due to spiral path of positron in a magnetic field
• Typical construction: subject, RF coil, PET camera, rest of MR system
• More detail about strengths of MR, PET, and how combination may be used (e.g. co-registration of PET data onto MR data, MR data for attenuation correction)

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:

• Sequential vs Simultaneous - Sequential has always existed since the advent of imaging networks. Simultaneous advantages are incredible in the X,Y,Z and time correlations. Basically, 4 dimensional imaging improvements and motion correction considerations. Please reference this article, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2934593/ .
• Interactions - I'm not sure how to handle this request. Can some examples of the information desired or a more specific question be offered?
• Photomultiplier tubes - PMT's use typical "tube" technology, thus the electron beam stream is extremely susceptible to magnetic influence. Simply put, "tube" amplifers and technology can not operate within the magnetic fields used in MRI. APD's and SIPM's can be better explained by simple links to existing WIKI information. As far as MR/PET usage, APD's effectively operate as equivalent "tube" amplifier technology and are NOT susceptible to magnetic field influence. APD = Digital PMT, per se. SIPM's are basically "many" APD's on a single layer that improve control and resolution of the signal as well as provide timing resolution improvements (important in PET).
• All PET scanners suffer from a "tolerance" band for physical X,Y,Z isolation of the event due to timing limitations and the statistical reality that a positron travels in a random direction following creation prior to annihilation. This reality effectively limits the resolution to 2mm regardless of how good the timing resolution is. Thus, PET image quality is more greatly influenced by the statistics (quantity) of events and accurate placement of the LOR, rather than the timing (physical improvement of X,Y,Z with <2mm resolution) of the event.
• For answer to construction I will provide the reference above again, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2934593/ , and state that the present MR/PET system offered by Siemens is an insert system that has simultaneous capability. The actual physical construction I will search for publically available references to link to in the future.

Kkadams115 (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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)

****OPPOSE**** MR/PET is NOT PET/CT, just as MR is not CT (if you want to use math to cancel the PET terms. ;) ). I encourage the talk for this page to be left on this page. I hope I have correctly understood the meaning of the "move" post here correctly. Kkadams115 (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The closed discussion on that page which the bot referenced was to move PET/MRI to PET-MRI and PET/CT to PET-CT. Just a change from slash to dash. VQuakr (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggested redirects

• PET MRI , PETMRI
• PET-NMR , PET/NMR , PET NMR , PETNMR
• PET MR , PETMR , PET/MR , PET-MR

-- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101225091905/http://www.hug-ge.ch/hug_cite/inauguration_PET_IRM.html to http://www.hug-ge.ch/hug_cite/inauguration_PET_IRM.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 16 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

Editing to add with specific reference to the policy I believe this name as discussed above is more recognisable, natural and consistent. It retains the same level of precision (there are no similar techniques with which the shortened name would be confused) while being considerably more concise. Beevil (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support PET–MRI Rreagan007 (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Mild oppose, the current name is consistent with the naming convention of other techniques. --MaoGo (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, the issue is WP:ACRONYMTITLE which recommends an aconym "if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject." The acronym PET is not primarily associated with positron emission tomography and constructing related article titles as if it were will cause confusion. --Kkmurray (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

My only arguments would be that this wasn't determined an issue for PET/CT, and the linked policy does suggest using acronym finder and abbreviations.com to quickly indicate a primary subject, where PET is listed in this context third (behind only Peter (New Testament) and Petroleum), and first, respectively. I don't think petroleum or Peter are likely to be confused, and I would imagine readers are likely to be more confused by the long name that isn't the one most used in other contexts. A google search for PET/MRI produces a first page solely related to this subject, so the combined acronym looks primarily associated with this subject. Beevil (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

This argument is circular because it uses the existence of some acronym titles as justification for all acronym titles. PET-CT should be moved to positron emission tomography–computed tomography and cardiac PET should be moved to cardiac positron emission tomography to be consistent with WP:ACRONYMTITLE as well as with brain positron emission tomography and positron emission mammography. --Kkmurray (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support move to PET-MRI per COMMONNAME[1] [2] [3] and consistency with PET-CT. --В²C ☎ 00:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose the proposed, as "MR" is not a standard abbreviation, is not the standard abbreviation, and I am not sure it is a correct abbreviation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

PET-MR is certainly widely used and absolutely "correct", but I concede that PET-MRI is more widely used and would be a better title, I did mention it as well in my initial posting, as have others. Beevil (talk) 09:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support PET-MRI hybrid imaging technology as a better title than the very brief PET-MRI, better recognizable, and at 33 characters is well short of one line of title font in the standard output, unlike the current 55 character title. I note that PET and MRI are standard abbreviations[4]. I trust someone else will worry about the correct dash/hyphen and its correct spacing, but I am pretty sure the current title is wrong. What is "tomography–magnetic resonance"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Relisting again to allow for further discussion of SmokeyJoe's new proposed title. Dekimasuよ! 20:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • oppose new proposed title as unnecessary disambiguation, violates CONCISE, etc; same as current title. Still support PET-MRI. Perfectly recognizable, especially to those familiar with the topic, which is the relevant scope. --В²C ☎ 18:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

First proposal of PET-MRI combination

The combination of PET and MRI was first proposed in 1991 by R. R. Raylman.

@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, 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)

@Islesonfire and 157.182.105.1: Responding to reply left on my talk page to try and keep conversation in one place

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.

I am not disputing that the thesis mentions the combination, I am questioning what proof there is that this was the first proposal for a combined system. As I said in my above comment, while from online searches I haven't found a good source that directly disputes your claim, I haven't found anything that supports it either. I did find an earlier patent (1989, referenced above) for a different implementation of the PET-MR combination, so to me this shows the 1991 thesis was not the first proposal for any combined PET-MR system. Perhaps the claim could be worded with caveats, that it was the first proposal of this type, but my original point about the suitability of this reference still applies there.

Why don't you want to give credit where it belongs to Mr. Raylmam?

I would be happy to give credit where it's due, but what I would like to see (and what I understand Wikipedia favours) is a secondary source which attributes the first proposal of a combined system to Mr Raylman. Without this, who's to say that there weren't other earlier proposals which I haven't found or haven't made it online. The thesis alone doesn't say anything about whether this is the first proposal.

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.

This sounds somewhat like activist editing, I don't think it does your argument any favours. Also, I believe that accounts are supposed to be used by one person, and not represent a group.

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

That may or may not be the case, but it's not the point of discussion at the moment.

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!

(Apologies if this IP comment is from someone else) I don't see this wording as any improvement, as without it being the first mention of a PET-MRI combination it begs the question of why discuss this particular thesis at all!

In any case, I don't want to end up in an edit war, I won't remove this claim again. Beevil (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Marah would approve!!!Islesonfire (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)