MRI question

[agate]

I've been at MS World for years now and recall that there sometimes were people who knew something about MRIs. Maybe someone is here now who can help me.

I had my third MRI recently and asked for a copy of the report. Since my MS was diagnosed in 1980 and has been getting worse only very slowly, the actual findings--that there hadn't been much change since an MRI two years ago--weren't surprising.

But a couple of sentences puzzled me, mainly because of the word "real." Maybe MRI technology uses "real" in some way I don't know about. Here are the sentences:

"On sagittal FLAIR imaging moderate hyperintensity involving the undersurface of the corpus callosum from the corpus callosum rostrum to the spslenium appears unchanged and is likely real."

"Coronal FLAIR imaging confirms that signal abnormality in the corpus callosum is real."

Is there a question about some MRI findings? Are they sometimes "unreal"? What does "real" mean here?

Many thanks in advance to anyone who replies.

[gomer]

No Xpert here, maybe one of them will drop in on this thread.

My impression is that MRIs are interpreted and an impression of the doc reading the pictures. Sounds to me like they are saying the coronal FLAIR imaging CONFIRMS the SAGITAL FLAIR image, and that its possable one or the other could show something like a false image or noise etc, and that by it being visible on BOTH eliminates ore reduces the chance its an artifact, noise or something else.

Gomer

[kingrex]

When you see what looks like an abnormality on MRI, it's always nice to confirm that it's real and not an artifact by seeing it in another imaging plane or on another type of MR sequence. In deep areas of the brain, turbulence from the blood vessels or from CSF flow can cause artifacts which might be confused with actual brain lesions.


rex

[agate]

Thank you both for the prompt and clear replies!