Saturday, June 8, 2024
Head-only then and now
Saturday, April 20, 2024
Digital posters for ISMRM 2024
Tuesday, April 16, 2024
DIANA questions, raised scientifically
A first scientific counterargument against DIANA was published recently in an open-access journal: A different interpretation of the DIANA fMRI signal | Science Advances. The three main points are the following: (1) The authors did reproduce the original MRI data and therefore the original report by Toi et al. in Science is likely true on observed facts. (2) On the other hand, the authors could explain their own observations better without invoking neuronal response, but rather based on instrumental artifacts and coincidental circumstances. (3) Regarding membrane potential-induced T2 change, the authors believe that the originally reported in-vitro T2 change is rather caused by cell swelling than membrane potential. The authors did leave several questions unanswered that need to be answered in order to reconcile their assertion with the large amount of experimental data reported in Toi et al.
It is notable that the authors humbly titled their paper as "A different interpretation of DIANA fMRI" and showed reservation of judgment and desire to be constructive. The paper ends with a respectable remark, "Although the goal of probing neural activity with millisecond temporal resolution using fMRI remains unmet, we hope that the contribution of Toi et al. will inspire further efforts to achieve this ambitious and worthy objective."
The questions raised by this paper are certainly serious and substantial. But they were brought up in a way to allow professional debate and objective mutual verification. I hope this development, along with the growing body of positive data from Prof. Park's team, will soon bring clarity to this tantalizing DIANA puzzle.
Wednesday, March 20, 2024
Installation finished
Sunday, February 25, 2024
Installation under way
Saturday, January 27, 2024
ISMRM abstract announcement
This year's ISMRM abstract announcement came a week earlier than usual. In my count, about 143 x 36 = 5148 abstracts were accepted, as compared to 141 x 38= 5358 last year. I see submission numbers going beyond 8600 so the acceptance rate is perhaps about 60%, quite low compared to the past. The question of fairness and transparency naturally arises as more people get rejection -- prominently missing any explanation. When Dr. Derek Jones, now president of ISMRM, visited us last year I did ask about providing some kind of scores or justification for abstract decisions. He was under impression that rejected ones are of obvious low quality, and the question may be more on oral vs posters. I think this position needs re-visiting, as (i) the field is getting ever more diversified, making judgement of others' work difficult, and (ii) unlike APS, for example, ISMRM abstract submission requires considerable manual work (on formatting) so the rejected authors deserve some sort of feedback at the minimum.
Personally, two first-authored abstracts were accepted for digital posters as requested. They both involve eddy current. Video recording should happen in the next several weeks. More on that part later!