Talk:Strain–encoded magnetic resonance imaging

COI? not
I have no COI on this topic. i added the content you deleted in this dif with edit note "removed self-promotion, as per WP:COI" What that content does, is a) say why this topic matters (it is the basis of an MRI product that is on the market) and b) making it clear that  who is the creator of this article, has one, including by placing the connected contributor tag on this article (which I still have to do, to a couple more articles he created)   You cannot strike an edit note, so I will ask you to disclaim that here. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry for mixing this up - I hadn't tracked down the edit that brought this in when I looked at the latest changes that included edits from both of you. So I take back the COI claim with regards to you. I still think that phrasing is way too promotional, though. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

DiagnoSoft
I dug a little deeper. Apart from sounding promotional, the DiagnoSoft sentence is problematic in multiple respects, e.g.
 * 1) None of the references cited therein provide any information about the (FDA) approval.
 * 2) DiagnoSoft is a company that provides software to analyze SENC data, so it is misleading to write that they aim "to get regulatory approval for the technique" when that technique refers to the MRI technique SENC described in this article (see lead).
 * 3) Nael Osman co-founded the company, rather than founding it alone.
 * 4) DiagnoSoft seems not to have been founded to get approval for SENC, but after the founders had been granted a set of patents on MRI techniques, including on SENC. A software related to one of these (HARD) has been examined by FDA and was found not to need approval because of its similarity to existing software that had been cleared before.
 * 5) The statement "to make it available to doctors and patients" seems superfluous to me.
 * 6) Even if the Diagnosoft sentence were entirely correct, I think its length would be too long in proportion to the overall article (or, rather, the article is too short to have a mention of this software).

Besides, I do not see why the 2003 Osman paper is cited rather than the 2001 one (assuming this is the first report - could not check in detail), and I am not sure either why the Goetschalckx paper is cited instead of others. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks for backing off from the COI charge. :)  sorry but this all seems to come from a kind of "companies are bad" kind of perspective.  If there is no product on the market, it cannot be used to help patients (you can't use open-source software clinically - not allowed).  You can't get sell a medical imaging product without FDA approval (to be more precise, without at least a 510K waiver; you don't necessarily need a PMA).  And yes, SENC Ihas a 510K.  added a ref showing that and tweaked the copy.  I've got to go and will out of pocket all day.  more tonight! Jytdog (talk) 08:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * btw, the Goetschalckx paper is cited because it is the only secondary source i found that discusses SENC. per WP:MEDRS secondary sources are highly preferred. Jytdog (talk) 08:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * as for the early ref describing the technique in detail, i don't care which ref is used there i don't know why it matters - they both describe SENC and that is the point. what is the real issue between one or other other?Jytdog (talk)