Wow, thanks!

http://www.amazon.com/Advances-Imaging-Electron-Physics-135/dp/0120147777/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348254629&sr=1-1

The pic is from this book called "Microcosmos". (note: this is a link to Amazon)

It's pretty great, there are a lot of cool pictures in it. I like to keep it around my desk to flip through while I wait for things to load on my computer.

Well, it depends on how hard you are willing to work,

Lazy and just want to kinda get used to terminology:
Learning Radiology by Herring

Willing to put in 2-3 hours every day during the rotation which by the way is entirely feasible since med students definitely aren't doing more than 40 hours a week, most do like 30 during a rads rotation. Use Core Radiology

Difficultish: Brant and helms, the harrisons of radiology. But unlike harrisons where legit everything is covered, if you really want to learn radiology you have to get subspecialty specific textbooks like the requisities series. That said, this is what I used back in the day during med school and I definitely don't regret it. I've read through core radiology as well, they are kinda similar in content, but B&H is a bit more formal and teaches radiologist principles better. If you are going into radiology, this is the textbook to buy since you'll probably use it in residency during PGY-2.

And in general, you are never going to read the entire textbooks during med school, but for IM or EM docs, Core could be super useful even though it will be beyond them for certain topics.

For physics, this is my favorite book by far. It can be a bit dense, and some in my opinion more ignorant radiologists who dislike extensive physics don't like it as much, but I learned during training physics makes the radiologist. Even among radiologists, too many doctors make basic physics mistakes that lead to misdiagnosis, especially with things like nuclear imaging. I frequently overread cardiologist and GI nuc imaging and am kind of appaled by the complete lack of basic radiation understanding. That said...

Here are the amazon links, you can probably find pdfs to some of the books and those that aren't you can probably find in your hospital library.

https://www.amazon.com/Learning-Radiology-Recognizing-Basics-3e/dp/0323328075/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1500633396&sr=8-1&keywords=radiology

https://www.amazon.com/Core-Radiology-Approach-Diagnostic-Imaging/dp/1107679680/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1500633396&sr=8-2&keywords=radiology

https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Diagnostic-Radiology-Set-Brant/dp/1608319121/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1500633979&sr=1-1&keywords=brant+and+helms

Specifically for MRI:
https://www.amazon.com/Duke-Review-MRI-Principles-Case/dp/1455700843/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1500633869&sr=1-1&keywords=duke+MRI

^Great book for the basics of MRI artifacts and connects visual artifacts to the physics, although learning how to differentiate between artifact and pathology is going to take a residency ;). Also, make sure to get the online version because the paper edition is shit quality.

Yea, so all in all, everyone can find a book that will satisfy their level of interest in radiology, and of course, you get out what you put in. You put in a lot of time in the rotation, that is your decision and I think it was worth it. I learned more of my physics principles during my rotation(although it helped I was an engineer) than residency, so when it came time to take physics CORE, I didn't have to study. Physics CORE is basically the step 1 of radiology, the exam can be hard as shit, and unlike step 1, there is no UFAP or UWORLD lol.

Radiology textbook can be obscure in that they often don't explicitly mention physics principles, so if you don't them, you can't truly appreciate a textbook in my opinion, and how I studied radiology basically was I always had four textbooks open at any given time.

Robbins for pathophysiology, Whatever radiology textbook I was using, a copy of Netters, and maybe an embryology review book if I felt it was necessary. Never steered me wrong, radiology and anatomy textbooks open at all times are especially important, but try to keep the anatomy book and pathophys book closed while "interpreting" the textbook, only to re-correlated after you have thought about it and read a section to get a second more in depth look.

Costantly reminding yourself of principles is important and often missed. I am sure all of you know radiology is one of the most basic science heavy specialties, so reviewing your basic sciences, even well beyond medical school, makes for a fantastic radiologist.

However be careful not to get attached to any given textbook as well, you can't exactly have netters and robbins with you in the reading room.

Returning to posting just to tell everyone to stop trying to make this happen. I'm a Catholic and an analytical chemist, and I've read the papers.

The scientific studies purporting to "prove" the shroud's origin are just awful. Behind the vast majority are Giulio Fanti, whose recent career has involved studying nothing but the shroud, which he's clearly convinced is real before performing the experiments (this is not good science). His main results are rejected by the scientific community--the tests used to establish an origin around 0 AD were not published in a scientific journal, but in a book Fanti wrote (because they were not considered reputable) (1). The tests he used (including IR, Raman, and a mechanical test) did not follow established protocols; they were calibrated in Fanti's lab, verified by no other party, and immediately used to date the shroud. The archbishop of Turin has claimed "there is no value to these experiments" (2). Some of the results Fanti actually managed to get published (the so called "biological evidence") have been retracted as "data presented in this article are not sufficient to support the conclusions drawn". (3)

You can question the carbon dating if you like--but there is not any real evidence supporting the shroud's origin ~0 AD. Given that the shroud was entirely unknown until the 14th century, a much earlier origin is unlikely.

1. https://www.amazon.com/Shroud-Turin-First-Century-Christ/dp/9814669121
   
2. https://www.lastampa.it/2013/03/28/vaticaninsider/sindone-la-battaglia-dei-reperti-ma-fanti-li-ha-buoni-Jg4vnlWaNsnSe4DXvDyTNN/pagina.html
   
3. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0180487

Congrats on joining neuro! I think I know where you work (what can I say, there aren't a lot of neurologist using that type of magnet in Canada), but reddit is anonymous so I'll leave it at that.

So I actually use an outpatient imaging facility called Animal Scan. They have human trained MR techs run the magnet. After working with both vet techs trained by their docs and human MR trained techs, I can tell you that the training that they have makes a huge difference. My MR tech can do things with that magnet that I didn't know where possible. So the real answer is, to be really really good, you probably would have to do all of that course work (which I think takes 1 to 2 years)

That being said you are in a very common situation. Hopefully as the new neuro tech certification gets off the ground we can work on a specific CE for you guys.

I haven't read it, but I hear good things about this book: http://www.amazon.com/Rad-Techs-Guide-MRI-Instrumentation/dp/0632045051/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373753133&sr=8-1&keywords=mri+tech

And I have a question for you: how do you like that magnet? Ever had a critter (like a big dog T spine) that wouldn't fit in it? How long does it take you to scan a large dog TL? There are lots off rumors about that magnet, but I have yet to talk to someone who actually runs one.

If you have the time and money or library access, this book Color Appearance Models - M Fairchild, is pretty good and comprehensive. Colour is a bit of a rabbit-hole topic, it goes quite a long way down (for instance different camera manufacturers have different color models and as I understand sell modified versions in different geographies -so point a Canon and a Nikon at an X-rite and you get different results)
Book
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Appearance-Models-Imaging-Science-Technology/dp/1119967031

Also this guy's blog is pretty good http://www.strollswithmydog.com/perfect-color-filter-array/

Remote sensing and image interpretation is a good read and a great addition to an office bookshelf. Dated in that some better stuff isn't there but a lot of it still holds relevant today

http://www.amazon.com/Remote-Sensing-Interpretation-Thomas-Lillesand/dp/0470052457

You could probably find a better price or another source googling around

I took the registry a few months ago and while I don't want to discourage you I feel it's best to be brutally honest. I took the test after taking classes and clinical for my bachelors degree. I also want to state for the record that I passed my rad boards with a 94 and my CT boards with a 89... That being said the MRI registry was the hardest test I've ever taken. I passed with a 77... And I was shocked when it came out that high.

Part of the problem is I couldn't find any good study materials. The one registry review book on amazon is really sketchy... Lots of wrong answers, some outdated material... And I found it didn't reflect the boards at all. Being away from it so long is going to make it even harder for you.

If you really want to do it though, go all in. Try and find some CE seminars through the ASRT or other organizations, that would probably be your best bet. Or see if the ASRT has those learning modules for MR like they do for CT.

Edit- included link for my review book. But read the reviews, they are on the money.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1444333909/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1411062323&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40

Seconded. Another book in that vein is Ashby's Statistical Analysis of fMRI Data:(http://www.amazon.com/dp/0262015048/ref=rdr_ext_sb_pi_sims_2)

My lab had this book by Ashby. I didn't use it that much but the first few chapters do a good job of introducing concepts behind proper experimental design and why design is so important to the GLMs you'll use to analyze the data. To be honest though, Vince Calhoun is the real person to listen to when it comes to fMRI analysis. He has a way deeper and broad understanding of the bold signal and how to analyze it than old school people like Friston or Ashby.

I had a hard time with this too. the book that eventually ended up giving the best explanation (for me) was this one: http://www.amazon.com/MRI-Ray-Hashman-Hashemi-PhD/dp/1608311155/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407170208&sr=8-1&keywords=mri+the+basics

It was available online for free at my institution.

You just need the intuition behind the ideas, a book like this

https://www.amazon.com/Topology-Applications-Topological-Spaces-Near/dp/9814407658

would go some way towards that as a study guide alongside Munkres, as well as Sasho

https://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-Introduction-Topology-Homotopy/dp/1439848157

The source of this image is Microcosmos: Discovering The World Through Microscopic Images From 20 X to Over 22 Million X Magnification by Brandon Boll (Amazon link). The Daily Mail wrote a review including several other images from the book a couple of months ago.

Looking for PDF

https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Science-Imaging-Magdy-Khalil/dp/3319400681/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1537223169&sr=8-2&keywords=Basic+Science+of+PET+Imaging

Basic Science of PET Imaging

ISBN-13: 978-3319400686

ISBN-10: 3319400681

Willing to pay $10 Paypal
CLOSED

These are all in a great coffee table book called Microcosmos that I can't recommend enough. That copy is a large paperback version that I haven't seen, though. I have the smaller hardbound version but apparently it's 70 bucks on Amazon now, wtf.

ETA: I've never had a guest over that didn't eventually pick it up and spend 20-30 minutes flipping through it. It's fascinating.

I agree, you really can't learn structure determination from a book. I second talking to someone with more experience. Another book you may want to look at is by Stout, it's the one I used in grad school. Check the library, it's godawful expensive on Amazon.

The "point" I am making is that people in this thread are going around saying Violet is this and Purple is that... but...

Who got to decide that?

Because it certainly isn't the court of public opinion, who couldn't give a shit about wavelengths or spectral purity or eye response.

How do you know the claim made by the OP is even true?

Looking around the net, most websites that discuss the matter seem to be just copying each other as if it was an urban legend. Many dictionaries give multiple definitions (as opposed to the "strict" single definition given by the OP), and wikipedia just cites a book that is targeted towards industrial uses (as opposed to colloquial use).

>Magenta, then.

My point exactly.

If it wasn't for the common industrial use of magenta in printers during the last few decades, nobody would give a fuck about magenta being a combination of two wavelengths. Everyone would still be thinking of that color as just a color. Like yellow. Or purple. Or violet.

Just because an industry or scientific field creates a definition of a word for their own use, doesn't magically make it also the definition for colloquial use, e.g. your average redditor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJnncI3XjyQ

It is a very interesting study and one of the latest books virtually proved it is genuine. Will give you details later

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/9814669121/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=#sims-fbt-shipping-details_1542242293111

by Giuliani Fanti, but also Bernard Ruffin and Ian Wilson. Also by one of best believing historians (Warren H. Carroll)