Comments for Reference Scan http://www.refscan.info Magnetic Resonance Imaging news, information, and journal club, with minimal spin. Thu, 11 Mar 2010 04:47:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 Comment on research money well spent by madzientist http://www.refscan.info/2007/03/11/research-money-well-spent/#comment-482 madzientist Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:23:57 +0000 http://www.refscan.info/2007/03/11/research-money-well-spent/#comment-482 quick thoughts.. from pure self-interest, it makes sense to punish only if there is going to be a repeat game. it also makes sense to punish for altruistic reasons, or guided by "emotional" fairness reasons. but personally, i would be mad not at the other player, but at the experimenters, for not giving me the chance to play the donor. why should i be the recipient ? was that choice made fairly ? and if it was (e.g. by a coin toss), then i would treat myself as the middle man while the other player won a lottery.. he would have to pay me commission to claim his money. as long as he paid me enough to make *me* happy, irrespective of what he is getting, i would let him claim his share. of course, $1 (out of $10) doesn't cut it.. the outcome of the game would be different if played for a total of $10,000 of which he offered me $1000... quick thoughts..

from pure self-interest, it makes sense to punish only if there is going to be a repeat game. it also makes sense to punish for altruistic reasons, or guided by “emotional” fairness reasons.

but personally, i would be mad not at the other player, but at the experimenters, for not giving me the chance to play the donor. why should i be the recipient ? was that choice made fairly ? and if it was (e.g. by a coin toss), then i would treat myself as the middle man while the other player won a lottery.. he would have to pay me commission to claim his money. as long as he paid me enough to make *me* happy, irrespective of what he is getting, i would let him claim his share. of course, $1 (out of $10) doesn’t cut it.. the outcome of the game would be different if played for a total of $10,000 of which he offered me $1000…

]]> Comment on A Primer on Dixon Imaging by Review Questions for MRI registry. « Coolmristuff http://www.refscan.info/2007/02/11/a-primer-on-dixon-imaging/#comment-480 Review Questions for MRI registry. « Coolmristuff Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:52:11 +0000 http://www.refscan.info/2007/02/11/a-primer-on-dixon-imaging/#comment-480 [...] b)Dixon technique [...] [...] b)Dixon technique [...]

]]> Comment on stay tuned by MOBY http://www.refscan.info/2007/06/01/stay-tuned/#comment-477 MOBY Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:24:20 +0000 http://www.refscan.info/2007/06/01/stay-tuned/#comment-477 <strong>Bookmarks...</strong> I can't add your post to Digg. How I do this?... Bookmarks…

I can’t add your post to Digg. How I do this?…

]]> Comment on stay tuned by Dustin http://www.refscan.info/2007/06/01/stay-tuned/#comment-475 Dustin Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:56:29 +0000 http://www.refscan.info/2007/06/01/stay-tuned/#comment-475 For that matter, I have the (only marginally) better excuse of working on a Ph.D proposal...but coming soon: *Article reviews *Book reviews *Discussion of computational methods *Some random DTI data... For that matter, I have the (only marginally) better excuse of working on a Ph.D proposal…but coming soon:

*Article reviews
*Book reviews
*Discussion of computational methods
*Some random DTI data…

]]> Comment on FDA Advisory on Gadolinium contrast agents by Unsafe Drugs http://www.refscan.info/2007/01/28/fda-advisory-on-gadolinium-contrast-agents/#comment-474 Unsafe Drugs Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:13:47 +0000 http://www.refscan.info/2007/01/28/fda-advisory-on-gadolinium-contrast-agents/#comment-474 <strong>Mother Sues Bayer Over Death of Son...</strong> Beverly Rockwell plans to seek compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of her son, Trevor A. Drake, who died after an injection of Magnevist. Rockwell claims that Magnevist, made by Bayer, was responsible for her son's death. The lawsuit alleges..... Mother Sues Bayer Over Death of Son…

Beverly Rockwell plans to seek compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of her son, Trevor A. Drake, who died after an injection of Magnevist. Rockwell claims that Magnevist, made by Bayer, was responsible for her son’s death. The lawsuit alleges…..

]]> Comment on PET and MRI by Jbar http://www.refscan.info/2007/03/07/pet-and-mri/#comment-473 Jbar Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:08:35 +0000 http://www.refscan.info/2007/03/07/pet-and-mri/#comment-473 The combination of PET/MR/CT is the one most being looked at now. It is so difficult to produce that the design is becoming just one bed taking the patient through each scanner one by one. Some development of MRI/PET systems have been going on over at Phillips, but I am not sure what approach they are taking. Concerning the photomultiplier tube problem, the two solutions are optical coupling and avalanche photodiodes. In optical coupling, the electromagnetic radiation is detected within the magnet and coupled optically to the PMT's outside the magnet. Avalanche photodiodes are silicon devices that simulate the cascade effect of PMT's but are virtually unaffected by high magnetic fields. Also, I saw that you mentioned that ISMRM had very few talks on MRI/PET last year. Unfortunately, it looks to be the same this year. However, you should check out SNM this year. Most of the interest in MRI/PET systems will be there. The combination of PET/MR/CT is the one most being looked at now. It is so difficult to produce that the design is becoming just one bed taking the patient through each scanner one by one. Some development of MRI/PET systems have been going on over at Phillips, but I am not sure what approach they are taking.

Concerning the photomultiplier tube problem, the two solutions are optical coupling and avalanche photodiodes. In optical coupling, the electromagnetic radiation is detected within the magnet and coupled optically to the PMT’s outside the magnet. Avalanche photodiodes are silicon devices that simulate the cascade effect of PMT’s but are virtually unaffected by high magnetic fields.

Also, I saw that you mentioned that ISMRM had very few talks on MRI/PET last year. Unfortunately, it looks to be the same this year. However, you should check out SNM this year. Most of the interest in MRI/PET systems will be there.

]]> Comment on Paul Lauterbur dies at age 77 by Kevin http://www.refscan.info/2007/03/29/paul-lauterbur-dies-at-age-77/#comment-472 Kevin Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:31:55 +0000 http://www.refscan.info/2007/03/29/paul-lauterbur-dies-at-age-77/#comment-472 UI-UC didn't patent MRI? Lauterbur's university decided not to file patent applications based on his work. "The company that was in charge of such applications decided that it would not repay the expense of getting a patent," Lauterbur said in 2003. "That turned out not to be a spectacularly good decision." Talk about losing a good source of revenue... UI-UC didn’t patent MRI?

Lauterbur’s university decided not to file patent applications based on his work. “The company that was in charge of such applications decided that it would not repay the expense of getting a patent,” Lauterbur said in 2003. “That turned out not to be a spectacularly good decision.”

Talk about losing a good source of revenue…

]]> Comment on NIH funding running dry by czarovich http://www.refscan.info/2007/03/13/nih-funding-running-dry/#comment-379 czarovich Thu, 22 Mar 2007 05:44:59 +0000 http://www.refscan.info/2007/03/13/nih-funding-running-dry/#comment-379 That sounds like a good approach. I still stand by one R01 per PI. If a PI really needs a second grant he/she can go to other sources (ACS, Komen, etc). If a PI is not actively involved in the work then they shouldn't be running the grant. The 2-R01 thing really started when more and more university's made that a requirement for tenure (really a grab for a bigger slice of the pie). There is a lot more that can be done. <a href="http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/nih-grant-funding-reform-past-time-11112.html" rel="nofollow">Here is something I posted last summer on another site</a> Keep in mind that China recently passed the 1 trillion dollar mark regarding foreign cash reserves. That sounds like a good approach. I still stand by one R01 per PI. If a PI really needs a second grant he/she can go to other sources (ACS, Komen, etc). If a PI is not actively involved in the work then they shouldn’t be running the grant. The 2-R01 thing really started when more and more university’s made that a requirement for tenure (really a grab for a bigger slice of the pie). There is a lot more that can be done.
Here is something I posted last summer on another site Keep in mind that China recently passed the 1 trillion dollar mark regarding foreign cash reserves.

]]> Comment on NIH funding running dry by czarovich http://www.refscan.info/2007/03/13/nih-funding-running-dry/#comment-378 czarovich Thu, 22 Mar 2007 05:37:39 +0000 http://www.refscan.info/2007/03/13/nih-funding-running-dry/#comment-378 That sounds like a good approach. I still stand by 1 R0 That sounds like a good approach. I still stand by 1 R0

]]> Comment on NIH funding running dry by czarovich http://www.refscan.info/2007/03/13/nih-funding-running-dry/#comment-337 czarovich Wed, 21 Mar 2007 00:28:57 +0000 http://www.refscan.info/2007/03/13/nih-funding-running-dry/#comment-337 Aziz, Yes there used to be an R29 program. CZ Aziz,
Yes there used to be an R29 program.
CZ

]]>