This news release reports findings from a study of functional MRI (fcMRI) scans in which researchers analyzed data from more than 10 hours of fcMRI scans on each of nine people. During the scans, each person performed a variety of tasks to determine the extent to which their behaviors altered the picture of their brain activity. The researchers found that each person’s brain imaging changed little from day-to-day or task-to-task. That is, the brain scans appeared to reflect fundamental, stable features of the brain. The release suggests that, based on these findings, its possible to use this type of brain scan to diagnose individual traits or diseases. That is very premature. Diagnostic tests have yet to be developed.
The release headline promises more than the news release delivers, and there’s a real question as to whether this information is useful to the public, or just misleading.
The heading of this news release proclaims hopefully that “Brain scans may help diagnose neurological, psychiatric disorders.” Whereas at present depression, bipolar disorder, and many other mental illnesses can only be diagnosed based on self-reported symptoms or observations of behavior, this release suggests we are on the verge of being able to diagnose these conditions via a particular type of MRI.
However, the study referred to simply laid the groundwork for research testing whether functional networks in individuals’ brains are relatively stable over time. Diagnostic applications remain to be developed.
No mention is made of the cost of functional MRIs, or how likely it is that insurance companies might cover that cost.
Some numbers would have been helpful here to put the findings in context. Consistency of the brain scans for the various mental tasks is not quantified in the news release. Furthermore, contrary to the implications of the headline, this study didn’t actually develop any diagnostic tools for depression, migraines, or other brain ailments. It simply laid the groundwork for research about these issues by testing whether functional networks in individuals’ brains are relatively stable over time. That’s a preliminary step that is needed, but it’s still preliminary.
No mention is made of discomforts or potential dangers associated with MRIs.
The news release goes into some detail about the number of people and hours of brain activity that were measured, with 333 different areas of participants’ brains identified and compared. A sample of nine people is small, but 10 hours of data per volunteer provided researchers with 90 hours of fcMRI data to analyze.
Although it over promises on the applicability of the study results, no disease mongering is evident.
Funders of the study are listed on a sidebar of the news release hosting site, EurekAlert!
Brief mention is made of self-reporting and behavior as current options for diagnosing illnesses like migraines, depression, and bipolar disorder but there’s no mention of their limitations or how a new diagnostic test might compare.
We are not told how available fcMRIs are to the general public.
The news release explains why findings in the study are news and why they could, in the words of the lead authors, “open the door to an entire new field of clinical testing.”
The headline and opening paragraph are misleading since they suggest there’s already a medical application for this research. It’s important to remember, though, that this is basic science research that may or may not eventually lead to clinical applications after much more research years into the future.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Why fact-checking is not enough to prevent the spread of misleading health care news...@HealthNewsRevu https://t.co/fzC2JbDYGV
Simply fact-checking an article "fails to capture questions of nuance and context that arise – or should arise – whenever evaluating medical evidence." https://t.co/HrYkGj12q1
We wrote only about efforts that label themselves as “fact-checking” projects. You’ll see that if you read the piece.
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like