I’m wondering if lesions in the brain can be seen with non-invasive technologies like MRIs, or if you have to cut the brain open to see them.
And if MRIs work, what limitations do they have.
This is (mostly) in the “just curious” category, because I was reading about a Dyschronometria, which sounds like one of the problems I have with ADHD, but the article I read indicated it was caused by brain lesions.
Small strokes and the like will show up. A gadolinium based contrast enhancer improves contrast, but has some occasionally deadly side effects,
Olney’s lesions, which are caused by abuse of NMDA antagonists, can be seen with an MRI.
I knew someone with a history of migraines that had a an MRI and it showed some structural anomalies in the brain as well as demyelinated regions in the white matter like tiny infarctions in the brain they called white matter hyperintensities, the doctor said there was also evidence of cerebral small vessel disease so yes I believe MRI’s can reveal quite a bit.
Seconded. I have chronic migraines and my MRIs show something very similar to pool’s friend.
Basically the whole point of MRIs is that yes, they show lesions in soft tissues such as the brain. X-rays (whether the old-style plates or modern CAT scans) are better at showing the hard tissues. Comparison between MRIs and CATs here; some of the information is US-centric and will be different in other countries (amount of each machine and type of scan done per capita).
We use MRIs every day to reveal all types of things in the brain.
Not just strokes and tumors, but the blood vessels of the brain (and whether they’re open, inflamed, or diseased in other ways), and the state of the brain more generally (such as whether its swollen, inflamed, infiltrated and, if so, which regions in the brain).
There must be more but I am tired and I’m sure there’s lots more information available for anyone interested.
Lesions *can *show up on MRI but it is likely that many do not given current field strengths.
For example, brain lesions are a major cause of epilepsy. If a patient with severe epilepsy has an MRI though, maybe no lesions are seen and it may be that we just don’t have the resolution or contrast to be able to see it.
Another thing to note is that there are different “modalities” (different imaging techniques) when using MRI. So, for example, if you get an MRI to check whether you’ve had a “mini-stroke”, they may use a modality that’s good for detecting that, not for checking whether there are lesions. (My memory on this is patchy though… I think they gather enough data to generate most of the main image types offline. But some modalities need more data (and hence a longer scan) and so would only be run if it was decided in advance it was required).
Noting here that gadolinium contrast (used in about a third of MRIs as a contrast agent to improve detection of some lesions) has been linked to systemic fibrosis in a small percentage of patients who already have impaired renal function (through acute injury or chronic disease).
What’s controversial (and not generally accepted medically) is whether there’s such a thing as “gadolinium deposition disease” causing a range of chronic problems. This got a lot of press awhile back due to a lawsuit involving Chuck Norris’ wife.
We still don’t have solid evidence that such a chronic syndrome exists.
@Jackmannii yes. It’s just a thing to think about if you have a particularly active histamine system or a history of hives/rashes and other odd allergic reactions.
I chose to stay away from gadolinium. The machine itself looked like a relic from the 90’s. That’s important too in getting useful results. There’s a new, now gadolinium enhancer I read about in ~2017. Don’t know it’s on the market yet.