|Radiology has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Biology. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|WikiProject Medicine / Neurology / Radiology||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Neuroscience||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
Okay, this is really messy. Radiology, radiography, and medical radiography all have the same summaries for the various radiology-department imaging modalities! One of these pages should have the summaries. The others should only have a list of links to their respective pages. I don't want to change anything until everyone agrees, but I'd really like to start with Radiography and remove the summaries. Possibly radiography should be disambiguation page for medical (which says the same thing) and Industrial. This page maybe should have one-line summaries, and also medical radiography. Otherwise we're killing mosquitos with shotguns here and it looks bad.Gaviidae 17:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I see it as this: :) :( :0 ;) >:(
Clinical Science has a couple of branches Medical Physics and Medical Engineering. (The engineering has computer scientists in it) these are the SCIENTISTS, then there is the PHYSICIANS, these are all the physicians that use medical imaging, and they are by no means all Radiologists.
The remit of clinical science is much wider than RADIOGRAPHY, RADIOLOGY, MEDICAL IMAGING e.g. electon microscopy might be part of clinical spcience... use of lasers definitely is... Thermography - that is...
Then there is RADIOGRPAHY, which is the application of specific bits of this science (which has grown up by convention and politics more than anything else) science in everyday clinical practice, which is very important to the encyclopedia reader, as this is the stuff they may need to know about e.g. x-rays, ct scans, MRA's, ultrasond, fluoroscopy, nuclear medicine, etc. etc.
Then there is the body of knowledge held by Radiologists and others, that enables decisions to be made and treatments to be given by the use of RADIOGRAPHY, this is RADIOLOGY.
Philipcosson 11:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
There is another point against merging. There are two wider fields of medical image processing and medical image analysis, which bear lots of similarities to computer vision and have rarely little to do with radiology. From these viewpoints radiology is merely an input modality able to generate two-dimensional and three-dimensional image data for subsequent analysis and processing. [[User <anonymous-image-processor>]]
True, but radiation therapy and radiology are related because they both rely on ionizing radiation. Would you say that radiation therapy is perhaps closer to oncology in a sense than to radiology because it is used so heavily in the treatment of cancer? Chad Harston 17:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. I consider myself an oncologist more so than I consider myself a radiologist. —Brim 07:01, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
It seems when searching for Radiologic Technologist, I get a hit for RT, which then suggests I look here for that info. However, there doesn't seem to be anything here about them. Aren't they a slightly seperate job position than Radiologists? Even if they're not, I think some clarification is needed. --anon
- There is a page now called radiologic technologist. RT does stand for rad tech, but it also stands for respiratory therapist, so I wouldn't look there. As for slightly different than radiologists-- A radiologist is a medical doctor. A rad tech performs the exams and does not make diagnoses (UK has some exceptions to this).Gaviidae 09:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
For me it is rather the other way around ! isn't radiology considered a part of medical imaging ?. Medical imaging is a vast field, just have à look at Category:Medical_imaging--Khalid hassani 19:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Medical Imaging and Radiology are NOT the same field. Medical Imaging may use radiologic tools, but it's not the same as the medical field of Radiology. Medical Imaging deals a lot more with computing sciences and in this case Biomedical Informatics. I see Medical Imaging as the science that enables engineers/scientists/medics to build radiologic tools and methods. -- (Joao) mrbillnauea (at) oninet.pt 22.214.171.124 02:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The above post has a point. Perhaps radiology is more akin to DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING if Medical Imaging is generally thought to involve Biomedical Informatics and computing sciences.
There is another point against merging. There are two wider fields of medical image processing and medical image analysis, which bear lots of similarities to computer vision and have rarely little to do with radiology. From these viewpoints radiology is merely an input modality able to generate two-dimensional and three-dimensional image data for subsequent analysis and processing. [[User <anonymous-image-processor>]], 22 February 2006
My opinion is that there should be separate entries in Wikipedia for "medical imaging", "medical image processing" and "radiology". These terms are of course related, but have different interpretations in terms of the fields they correspond to. Tpl 18:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Tpl
My vote: I dont think we should merge. MRI is usually not considered as a radiology modality, yet it is a diagnostic imaging tool. A similar argument can be made for PET and SPECT. They are bunched with "Nuclear Medicine Imaging" (separate from radiology) and yet fall under diagnostic imaging. And same again for ultrasound.
My 2 cents. Best to all.--Zereshk 04:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Point of clarification...MRI IS USUALLY CONSIDERED A RADIOLOGY MODALITY, at least in the United States. Radiologists read MRI's routinely, supervise scanning, and issue reports.--Josh Powell 07:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I would argue against merging because other specialties use imaging; I'm thinking of pathology in particular (which is mentioned very early in the article itself.) Historically, (surgical) pathologists might (and did) argue that they did not examine images, but real objects or slices of objects, typically magnified with a microscope. However, electron microscopy could be cited as an exception. Moreover, pathologists are increasingly accepting high-resolution digital images as acceptable substitutes for direct object magnification. I have less experience with forensic pathology, but photography seems important in that field as well.
I suspect there are other examples...all the more reason to maintain separate entries. It would be nice to have these fields better represented. I will review the article and consider adding a bit on surgical pathology if it seems appropriate. --Josh Powell 07:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. My vote is also not to merge the two. --Billgaitas@hotmail.com 19:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Do not merge. "Imaging" in ophthalmology, for example, has nothing to do with radiography. -AED 06:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Radiology implies the use of x-rays. Right, medical imaging can use radiology (x-rays) as a tool as well as it can use MRI, PET. So Medical Imaging article should not be merged into radiology. The article on radiology also should not be merged into Medical Imaging as radiology is used as a treatment techique as well as a visualization tool.
The two articles should stay separate.
Radiology is a general term where as medical radiography is a specific one.Both are separate.One is broader and other is limited.Radiology includes radiologist.Medical radiography concerns a medical specialist.
- The discussion seems to have tapered off many months or years ago, so I am removing the Merger tag. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Motion MRI vs Digital motion analysis vs cineradiography, videofluoroscopy
Exactly what are the differences between Motion MRI vs Digital motion analysis vs cineradiography, videofluoroscopy, in regard to spinal evaluation.
Special interest in differences between Motion MRI and Digital Motion Analysis.
- videofluoroscopy is a type of cine-radiography (old term for "moving x-ray pics"). Usually used by the speech pathologist to videotape (yes, still using ol' VCR's) the patient eating. MRI has no ionising radiation and its usefulness is dependent on who you're imaging (kids, preggers, anyone you don't want to radiate) and the speed and power of the MRI's computer. I've not actually heard of "motion MRI" but I've used fMRI for "functional" or sometimes "fast," which is live motion turned to a digital video the radiologist can watch. Does this help? I dunno if there will ever be pages on these. Gaviidae 09:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Aquisition of Radiological Images
This starts by saying to go to radiography main page, but all the stuff about each different modality is redundant-- the radiography page has the same thing on each modality (worded differently and with a bit less information). This is unnecessary overlapping. There should be a brief summary of getting images, and then a link to the radiography page, where people can read the summaries of the diff. modalities, and click on them for more info at each mod's main page.Gaviidae 09:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Free Online Medical Image Database
The Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences - in Bethesda, Maryland - sponsors a free online Medical Image Database called MedPix. This archive contains peer-reviewed and pathologically proven cases. The majority of features are available without login or registration
Here is the primary portal for MedPix:
MedPix also includes a new "diagnostic match" service. Search parameters retrieve a series of related images from the database, and these may be compared to an unknown image being evaluated remotely. Here are some sample searches:
This funtionality would allow comparison of known proven cases with a current unknown case as a guide or adjunct in making an imaging diagnosis.
MedPix is also a distance learning tool, providing Category 1 CME for Physicians and CEU for Nurses:
There is nothing inherently wrong with having commercial sites listed under External links; however, they have to add something to the site, such as being a reference. Sites which are JUST commercial implementations of Radiology don't belong in the article. Bejnar 17:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Pfft. Why can't you people just call it 'Imagiology' like we do here? In imagiology we study radiology, MRI and all the other medical imaging techniques. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
need more info
you need more info in the page for people that know nothing about radiology
"The Wayne State University School of Medicine and the University of South Carolina School of Medicine both offer an integrated radiology curriculum during their respective MD Programs in collaboration with GE Medical led by investigators of the Advanced Diagnostic Ultrasound in Microgravity study."
Radiographs - History
"A capture device then converts them into visible light, which then forms an image for review and diagnosis and health management. "
Is the 2nd line trying to explain the process that Roentgen discovered, however, in the descriptive of this paragraph, the above is an error, as there is no "capture device" that is converting "X-rays" to visible light in a conventional X-Ray Source and Film System.
The X-rays penetrate the body, and stimulate the halide of silver-salts on the film, or 'expose' the film. This is when the conversion happens, and the fixing of the silver halides on the film get developed in a chemical process that reverses the 'exposure' by having the areas that were exposed to the X-rays turn dark, or develop, and the leser areas that are not as much exposed by the X-rays, appear as clear parts on the film.
It is the actual layer of film then that is projected with a light source, that a clinician examines, and then uses for further diagnosis. Some Film sizes can be large, 20 x 30 cm, or small (3 x4 cm) depending on the purpose, Knee vs Dental examination. Richard416282 (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The description of the knee MRI reads "Image from an MRI examination of the knee with a displaced patella." Although there may be mild patella alta, I don't know if I would call it "displaced" (and there is no bone edema to suggest recent lateral subluxation). Can whoever posted this image please explain what they mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Looking at it again, maybe there is some abnormal signal in the patella. And maybe it's a section from a little more laterally than the usual position of the patella. I'm not a radiologist, but is there someone out there who can just check and make sure the caption is correct?184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)