Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:10:47.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Incidental Findings in Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Brain Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Charles A. Nelson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a noninvasive imaging tool that utilizes a strong magnetic field and radio frequency waves to visualize in great detail organs, soft tissue, and bone. Unlike conventional x-rays (including computed tomography [CT]), there is no exposure to ionizing radiation and at most field strengths (generally below 7 Tesla) the procedure is considered safe for nearly every age group. Because it is non-invasive (i.e., does not break the skin or harm the body) and possesses excellent spatial resolution (down to millimeters), the use of MRI as a research tool has increased exponentially over the past decade. Uses have ranged from add-ons to a clinical study (e.g., after scanning a child who has fallen from a bicycle, the radiologist might do an extra sequence to explore ways of obtaining higher resolution images) to studies of brain development in typically developing children. In addition, a major effort has been made in recent years to use MRI to study brain function (so-called “functional MRI” [fMRI]). Because the clinical utility of fMRI has not yet been realized, fMRI is still considered highly exploratory, and we cannot yet identify incidental findings of a functional (as opposed to structural) nature.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , Summer 2008 , pp. 315 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Almli, C. R. et al., and the the Brain Development Cooperative Group, “The NIH MRI Study of Normal Brain Development (Objective-2): Newborns, Infants, Toddlers, and Preschoolers,” Neuroimage 35, no. 1 (2007): 308–325; Waber, D. P. et al. and the Brain Development Cooperative Group, “The NIH MRI Study of Normal Brain Development: Performance of a Population Based Sample of Healthy Children Aged 6 to 18 Years on a Neuropsychological Battery,” Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 13, no. 5 (2007): 729–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmore, J. H. et al., “3 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain in Newborns,” Psychiatry Research 132, no. 1 (2004): 81–85; Gilmore, J. H. et al., “Imaging Early Childhood Brain Development in Humans,” presentation at the Society for Neuroscience, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giedd, J. N. et al., “Brain Development during Childhood and Adolescence: A Longitudinal MRI Study,” Nature Neuroscience 2, no. 10 (1999): 861–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, S. M. et al., “Managing Incidental Findings in Human Subjects Research: Analysis and Recommendations,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36, no. 2 (2008): 219–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illes, J. et al., “Ethical Consideration of Incidental Findings on Adult Brain MRI in Research,” Neurology 62, no. 6 (2004): 888–890.Google Scholar
Daniel Pine, personal communication with author, 2006.Google Scholar
Sobotka, S. and Lawrenz, F., “Empirical Analysis of Current Approaches to Incidental Findings,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36, no. 2 (2008): 249–255.Google Scholar
The author recently had a grant funded by the NIH where the study section reviewing the grant required that all MRIs be read by a neuroradiologist before a notice of grant award was made.Google Scholar