|Ideal sources for Wikipedia's medical content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Medical imaging.
|Medical imaging has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Technology. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted so long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.|
- 1 Merge proposal
- 2 medical imaging service
- 3 Symbol?
- 4 Images?
- 5 Synchrotron as source for medical imaging
- 6 External Links
- 7 Snark09 - relevance, notability and COI issues
- 8 Medical Image Automation
- 9 Clouds on the Horizon
- 10 Use in pharmaceutical clinical trials
- 11 Radiation exposure about 50%?
- 12 definition: "non invasive"
Against merging. They are different things to me. Miguel Andrade 14:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
How do we remove this merge suggestion then? 18.104.22.168 08:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
medical imaging service
Is this relevant? It might make a separate page, if rewritten, similar to pages on other occupations, such as biochemist -- which , by the way, is a very weak page and not intended as a model. DGG 04:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- I tend to feel it is relevant here, but I have no actual objection to someone splitting it into a separate article. 2*6 11:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Is the image Image:50pman medical imaging.svg an official symbol of any kind? It is presented as such, though I believe this is not the case. A "home-cooked" symbol is not a suitable illustration for "Medical imaging". Arru 13:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- shouldn't terahertz radiation also be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Considering the topic, would more medical images from the various technologies be in order? Thanks. 126.96.36.199 19:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I have uploaded a file into the Wiki Commons under Medical Imaging - and plan on uploading more. I am new to Wikipedia and am unsure how to place the image into the article. We also have several articles regarding the history and current developments in medical infrared imaging that I am working to get released under the GFDL.
On a side note why is it called "digital" medical imaging - that seems redundant since every infrared camera currently used for Medical imaging is digital - the only non digital 35mm cameras that are Near Infrared are used mainly for capturing vegetation and wildlife. MedicalInfrared (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Synchrotron as source for medical imaging
The synchrotron is listed as a source for medical imaging. I do not have references, but I am highly suspicious. While excellent images can be produced by synchrotron beams (and derivatives), these beams would likely be fatal for a live subject. They are, however, used for non-destructive probing fossilized specimens and for other industrial applications.
Does anyone have examples of where imaging using synchrotron beams (or derived sources) for scanning live subjects? I doubt they exist, but also understand that some form of filtered and/or derived beam could have medical applications... Enquire (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- A synchrotron gives different types of radiation. For medical imaging applications it can be seen as a high quality x-ray source. There are a few applications , most of them seem to be in research, not day today clinical use - this is because there are not so many synchrotron sources available. It is possible to control amount of x-ray radiation (and the wavelengths) - so it is no more dangerous than normal medical x-ray. Due to better focusing/filtering and often better detectors, radiation doses can be even lower than with conventional x-ray.--Ulrich67 (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
In response to the notice by Wikipedia about the need to improve the article by "removing excessive or inappropriate external links", I've moved the four listed below to the DICOM article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicom:
- Trial Wire - Free DICOM tool to transfer and anonymize DICOM files....
- MicroDicom - Free DICOM viewer for Windows
- SureVistaVision - Multi-platform DICOM viewer.
- OsiriX - OsiriX Open Source DICOM Viewer
Googled "medical imaging news" and the first site up, although somewhat plain, did have the least amount of flashing ads on it. Thought MedicalIMagingNews.com would make a nice addition. FreedomWorks! (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Snark09 - relevance, notability and COI issues
Klar sagen, why do you insist on having this link here?
- Software to experiment with CT reconstruction algorithms is far too technical for this article in my opinion. The article only briefly mentions reconstruction.
- Even if it is relevant: you can easily do this in MATLAB which is more notable (see WP:N).
- You appear to have a conflict of interest, since your account almost exclusively adds references to SNARK09 and references to a book by G.T. Herman on many articles related to medical imaging. Both SNARK09 and G.T. Herman are affiliated with the Discrete Imaging and Graphics Group of CUNY. I've already submitted this to the COI noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Klar_sagen. Just in case you missed the COI warning on your talk page that was put there by Sławomir Biały (talk) over a month ago: let me remind you that editing in order to promote an organization you are a member of is prohibited as per WP:COI and can lead to administrative action, especially if done without declaring your affiliation.
As such, this link does not seem appropriate and might be interpreted as Spamdexing. At least for now I am removing it from this article along with the reference to the G.T. Herman book. Please do not add these again until either consensus is reached on this talk page or the above issues are resolved appropriately. Smocking (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Medical Image Automation
Medical Image Automation refers to the capture of visible light medical images from a live video camera feed and their preservation in a patient's electronic medical record (EMR) or Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) with DICOM (Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine) headers. In the Center for Information Technology Leadership's (CITL) 2007 paper, "The Value of Provider-to-Provider Telehealth Technologies," medical image automation represents Level IV of Advanced Telehealth which is defined as the "convergence of traditional telehealth functionality throughout medicine, including integration with interoperable-EMR systems, such that a distinction between telehealth and traditional medicine becomes meaningless." Rdowney14 (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Clouds on the Horizon
Hello, I thought I'd take this opportunity to introduce myself. I'm writing white papers on the migration of medical imaging to cloud based systems. I would like to add some parts of my findings to enhance articles here at Wikipedia. I welcome you adding your insights to this growing trend.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Use in pharmaceutical clinical trials
Hello, here is a paragraph that I think could be misleading - "Medical imaging has become a major tool in clinical trials since it enables rapid diagnosis..." I just want to mention that many clinical research studies and clinical trials are not designed for patient diagnosis, or they have conditions and consent forms that say that patients would not be contacted and this information would not be disclosed. For example, many research labs are not certified to provide clinical information to patients.. In cases like I mentioned above, patients, however diagnosed, would not be informed.
Radiation exposure about 50%?
The sentence: "Radiation exposure from medical imaging in 2006 made up about 50% of total ionizing radiation exposure in the United States." seems to incorrectly interpret reference 3. The pie chart in the referenced page has a 48% dose total exposure for medical purposes, which does not equal medical imaging. It would appear that the nuclear medicine part (12%) also includes a part for therapy, although this is not clearly stated. Without nuclear medicine it totals out at 36%, still high, but substantially below 50. All in all, I would think that this reference is not appropriate for making the statement (although the underlying NCRP document probably does contain the correct numbers) and that the numbers are so impressive and worrying so I also would not want to suggest removing the statement. Can someone find a better reference, or can someone subdivide nuclear medicine in imaging and therapy related dose? Or am I wrong in thinking that the field of nuclear medicine includes therapy (in which case all therapeutic doses are missing from the pie chart).
A book review gave the answer, the 48% is actually accurate, as the report specifically ignores therapeutic doses in the nuclear medicine category, see http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncp162 . Shall I add this reference (not open access unfortunately) for clarity?