๐ณ๐ฑ
So I got the raw 3d MRI source files from the hospital. Then I got the software needed to view the MRI in 3d. It let me rotate, slice, and even colorize the images. So **I** generated these images from the raw MRI. It shows my kidney, heart, and skeleton from 4 different angles fully colorized. How cool is that!
I also included some of just the heart and kidneys on its own from the same scan.
@freemo I've had a couple CT scans done recently - I wonder if they'd give me the data here in Canada, too. Neat!
You very well could be right, im far from an expert (or even a novice) when it comes to imaging.
I am fairly certain this was an MRI with contrast though. It was a long time ago but I do remember the doctor saying as much. That is, unless the doctor was mistaken or misspoke. It certainly looked like any other MRI machine I was in.
@freemo @kithop I'm not a radiologist or physicist, so not an expert either. But due to being a doctor in internal medicine a see these images every day.
The difference is easy to spot: CT is relatively quiet and has a spinning part. MRI makes funny noises and has a rather small tunnel you have to lay in. Normally, you'd get an extra coil on the body part being scanned.
So how you describe the two devices, that is what I thought they were... and while I know nothing about nothing this definately sounds like it is the MRI like I thought it was... small tube, super tight and a little intimidating even... no metal allowed near it, all that jazzamaroo :) and I distinctly remember this being with contrast.
@freemo @kithop This sounds like an MRI indeed! A contrast agent can be used with both, CT and MRI. You can also look at the original images: With CT (which is x-ray), the bones appear white (as are calcifications, the contrast agent and metal). With MRI, it depends on the sequence used. T2: more water content ~ more white. T1: more fat ~ more white, roughly. But there are many more.
@freemo @kithop On the contrary! Volumetric rendering is normally done with CT imaging, not MRI (and I suspect, yours is a CT as well). MRI has good resolution in the scanning plane, but needs to aquire each plane separately, so has not enough data in the z direction. Since CT is aquired as a high res spiral, you have all the voxels you need; the CT images you would get to see are already reconstructions from the original volumetric data. And soft tissue is no problem either, you clearly see liver, kidneys, spleen, pancreas, adrenal glands etc ona native CT image.
The MRI on contrast does not show bones that well (depending on the sequence used, they do show the fatty bone marrow). And it is not that usual to do a full imaging of chest and abdomen using MRI (you would need different positions in the device and at least two extra coils, not talking about the long image aquiring time).