CogitoErgoSum101 - I'm afraid that this is another example of a reader being sufficiently upset as to miss what is clearly stated. You say in the Diffusion MRI DVI/DTI sectin that we did not mention the tensor in the 1992 filing. I have provided a link previously - that still works fine - that lets you download the July 31, 1992 filing. OCR has been run. You can get a copy from the UK patent office or from Delphion if you don't believe it. It is GB9216383A. On Page 21 of that filing, here is sufficient text:
"The use of vector analysis algorithms of this sort, or involving the treatment or coordinate transformation of MR diffusional anisotropy data with tensors of various rank can improve the generality and flexibility of neurographic imaging. The example described above demonstrates that by the application of tensor and/or vector analysis methods such as algorithms similar to those developed for the evaluation of e.g, magnetic, thermal, or structural anisotropy data, it is possible to greatly improve the flexibility and generality of image techniques for neurological diagnosis."
We go on to say:
"If the major axis of diffusional anisotropy is not known, a plurality of images are acquired with different orientations of the diffusion sensitizing gradients. The image data can then be processed to give a parameter associated with each pixel (or voxel in a 3D data set) which is a measure of the diffusional anisotropy at that point reflecting both magnitude and direction."
As with anything else, I think it is important to read through the entire document - the US 5,560,360 patent before going online with authoritative sounding statements about what is missing from it. Remember - if you read the Tauxe reference and consider that this was work I lived with day in day out ten years earlier as a grad student at Harvard (the six axis tensor solution) - when I say "algorithms are similar to those develooped for the evaluatin of e.g. magnetic data" it is fully enabling. Tauxe - to save you time - fully describes the six axis tensor solution. The paper is commenting on Jelinek's older paper saying that more axes are needed - typically 12 axes - all of this is in the review.Afiller (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
CogitoErgoSum - Here is the previous discussion on this issue for Neurography:Afiller (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Authorship
I was asked to take a look at this because it's possible that one of the inventors of the technique may be involved in writing the article <edit: this is not a problem in and of itself, but it is good to be aware of the guideline on writing about subjects you're involved in>. I read it and made a few minor tweaks. Overall I thought it was very good, and well referenced. You can tell it's written by a professional. I marked one spot I thought needed a reference, and one I thought needed explanation in layperson's terms. Ideas for improvement include adding explanations in layperson's terms and using more scientific review articles, which are preferred over primary literature in Wikipedia. If the technique has disadvantages compared to standard MRI, they should be included per the very fundamental neutrality policy. Thanks for the great work on the article so far, I look forward to seeing more from these contributors. Don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page if you need any help or want to discuss anything. delldot talk 19:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I will leave a note on wikiproject medicine. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC) From reading this article, I have no idea how widely or where it is practised. A google search lists the Neurography Institute as the exclusive provider (on google description but not the page), which gives me concerns about notability. Now this article needs to mention this material in a neutral fashion. also needs some criticism - is it widely taken up? If not , why not? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
CogitoErgoSum and Atama - I have also added a conflict of interest statement to the MR Neurography and Diffusion MRI articles with a full formal conflict of interest statement on my user page.Afiller (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
CogitoErgoSum101- I think you need to declare who you are since we have no proof that you don't have a conflict of interest (NIH support leading you to favor Dr. Basser, etc). I guess I just don't understand any positive reason why someone would remain anonymous and then throw stones. However, I strongly agree with declaring conflicts. In diffusion MRI, I'm not sure that my information added on this page will somehow increase the use of DTI and related technologies or how that would measurably benefit me. There are nearly 3,000 publications in this field that I think have greater weight. As for bias in writing, I think everyone has biases, but that requiring support for statements is critical and I believe I have clear detailed and unambiguous support for the statements that were questioned. I think that the term "DTI" is problematic since methods like Q-ball and other "model free" methods do not deploy the tensor. I will add another section about what exactly the tensor is. Our original term "diffusion anisotropy imaging" is a bit broader, but this is an encyclopedia and the term DTI is widely recognized. I think Q-Ball should be mentioned here rather than pushing it out to stand on its own in a separate article even though it is a non-tensor method.Afiller (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Cogito - I also did a drawing, references and a "How it Works" section on the Spin Echo page - just to be cautious - because it relates to MRI, I will put the COI notice on that page as well.Afiller (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)