Do you see a future for fMRI?

[Monkey Shocker]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hello SDN,

I am a software engineer at a company involved in the fMRI market. Through my dealings with customers, I have become fairly familiar with the types of paradigms used in fMRI research. I find that side of my work more interesting than the straight software side, and am investigating pursuing a career in neurology. I would like to do research but am not interested in a PhD, as it seems MDs are better respected and more likely to get funding.

My company does good business so it seems lke fMRI is on the upswing. I also attended HBM and SfN in the past 12 months and was impressed with the amount of research (I'm not yet sophisticated enough to judge quality). There are also emerging commercial uses of fMRI (however dubious) like neuromarketing.

Would it be worth it to go to medical school and do a residency to pursue this interest? I know that research methodologies and technologies come and go, but do you think fMRI is here to stay? If not, would I be better served by a general medical imaging focus in something like radiology? I am thiking of switching from engineering to medicine anyways, so this seems like the most obvious springboard.

Yours,
Monkey Shocker

 

[ILikeDrugs]

I'm pretty sure the field of neuroscience would be crippled without fMRI.

 

[typhoonegator]

I'm pretty sure the field of neuroscience would be crippled without fMRI.

Now there's a bold statement. A bit hyperbolic, don't you think? I'm fairly certain neuroscience could somehow soldier on without the supposed panacea of fMRI.

To the OP, fMRI is a very specific technology. Assuming you got into medical school right away, you'd be looking at finally being able to focus on research in about 8 years. I assume you'd want to do a radiology residency, which would include almost no fMRI exposure outside of research side-projects. Also, imaging technology moves pretty fast, and there will most definitely be a new shiny toy to play with by then.

Do you want to take care of patients? Because if you don't, medical school and residency could be a bit of a bummer for you. Going the PhD route, you could be doing real research much faster, and sans patient care.

Within a research field, the letters after your name have little to do with the respect you garner. Plenty of hard-core scientists are biased against MDs, in fact. So try not to let that factor too heavily in your decision.

 

[OddNath]

Would it be worth it to go to medical school and do a residency to pursue this interest?

You're not going to learn anything at all about fMRI during medical school, since it's not actually used in clinical practice (yet). To learn about fMRI, go work in an imaging lab and see how it's done.

And, fMRI isn't going anywhere. If anything, it may find its way into clinical practice in the diagnosis of vegetative state vs. locked-in (lots of press about this lately).

 

[PhakeDoc]

I'm pretty sure the field of neuroscience would be crippled without fMRI.

Wow, amazing what neurologists were doing these past 100 years before the advent of fMRI. 🙄



While imaging modalities are great, let's not forget the fundamental (yet often overlooked) neurological exam.

 

[95439]

Wow, amazing what neurologists were doing these past 100 years before the advent of fMRI. 🙄



While imaging modalities are great, let's not forget the fundamental (yet often overlooked) neurological exam.

320 detector row CT perfusion is the wave of the future, IMHO. Now to nullify that statement with a dumb question - how does fMRI differ from FDG-PET?

 

[OddNath]

320 detector row CT perfusion is the wave of the future, IMHO. Now to nullify that statement with a dumb question - how does fMRI differ from FDG-PET?

For one thing, fMRI doesn't require injection of a radioactive dye. The patient can be in a normal MRI scanner, get whatever structural MR images you need, and then collect functional data as well. So it's kind of handy (and cheaper) that it can all be done with one machine.

 

[95439]

For one thing, fMRI doesn't require injection of a radioactive dye. The patient can be in a normal MRI scanner, get whatever structural MR images you need, and then collect functional data as well. So it's kind of handy (and cheaper) that it can all be done with one machine.

Oh thank god you didn't go into the physics of what's different. I appreciate your response, it makes alot of sense, thanks!

 

[typhoonegator]

320 detector row CT perfusion is the wave of the future, IMHO. Now to nullify that statement with a dumb question - how does fMRI differ from FDG-PET?

FDG-PET doesn't make a dead salmon look like it's deep in thought.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/09/fmrisalmon/

 

[danielmd06]

FDG-PET doesn't make a dead salmon look like it's deep in thought.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/09/fmrisalmon/

This gets my vote for post of the week. Love it!

 

[MadEvans]

since it's not actually used in clinical practice (yet).

fMRI is used as pre-neurosurgical mapping of function at Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix to attempt to preserve language function after surgery.

 

[kingmo]

Like Oddnath said, fMRI doesn't involve radioactive injections. In research settings, this modality is on the upswing since fMRI can be used much more frequently and with less risks than PET. In clinical settings, implementation will be much slower and the benefits yet unclear.

 

[typhoonegator]

fMRI is used as pre-neurosurgical mapping of function at Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix to attempt to preserve language function after surgery.

Not just Barrow. Lots of places are doing it. Threshold-independent fMRI laterality indexing appears to be non-inferior to Wada testing pre-op. Conversely, threshold-dependent laterality indexing is frequently wrong.

Suarez et al. Epilepsy Behav 2009;16(2):288