Neuroscience 2003 Abstract
| Presentation Number: | 935.6 |
|---|---|
| Abstract Title: | Discovery and disclosure of incidental findings on brain MRI. |
| Authors: |
Illes, J.*1,2
; Kelly, M.1
; Saha, A.1,4
; Kirschen, M. P.1,2,3
; Desmond, J. E.2
; Glover, G. H.2
; Raffin, T. A.1
; Atlas, S. W.2
1Stanford Ctr. Biomed. Ethics, Stanford Univ, Stanford, CA 2Dept. of Radiology, Stanford Univ, Stanford, CA 3Program in Neurosci., Stanford Univ, Stanford, CA 4Program in Human Biol., Stanford Univ, Stanford, CA |
| Primary Theme and Topics |
Cognition and Behavior - Human Cognition and Behavior -- Other higher functions |
| Session: |
935. Human Cognition and Behavior: Anatomy Poster |
| Presentation Time: | Wednesday, November 12, 2003 2:00 PM-3:00 PM |
| Location: | Morial Convention Center - Hall F-I, Board # I72 |
| Keywords: | NEUROETHICS, BIOMEDICAL ETHICS, HUMAN, IMAGING |
Incidental findings on brain MRI - i.e., brain abnormalities discovered in subjects recruited to research studies as healthy controls or unexpected findings in patients - has garnered significant attention in the literature recently. Suspicious brain abnormalities have been reported to occur in as many as 40% of research participants, with clinically significant findings occurring in 2-8% of children and adults. We surveyed members of the MRI research community to document protocols used for discovering and disclosing such findings in research subjects. The cohort comprised investigators who conduct both structural and functional MRI studies. 84% of the investigators (N=31 to date) who responded to the survey reported discoveries of incidental findings on their studies. Findings ranged in severity from those requiring routine follow-up to those requiring immediate or urgent follow-up, and were detected by both MD-trained and non-MD-trained research personnel, including PhD investigators, professional laboratory personnel, and students. Of the respondents providing information about their specific protocols, 59% reported having standardized procedures for detecting incidental findings and communicating with research participants in whom findings are discovered; 41% proceed on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis. Review of research scans by a neuroradiologist is a current IRB requirement for only 17% (5/30) reporting. Lag time between scan acquisition and neuroradiologist readings, when applicable and reported, was 3-7 days in 75% (15/20), same day in 10%, and within or longer than one month in 15%. Data collection for the study continues. The discussion will consider ethical factors in the variability of protocols and procedural alternatives.
Supported by The Greenwall Foundation
Sample Citation:
[Authors]. [Abstract Title]. Program No. XXX.XX. 2003 Neuroscience Meeting Planner. New Orleans, LA: Society for Neuroscience, 2003. Online.
Copyright © 2003-2025 Society for Neuroscience; all rights reserved. Permission to republish any abstract or part of any abstract in any form must be obtained in writing by SfN office prior to publication.
