Guidelines for the ethical use of neuroimages in medical testimony: report of a multidisciplinary consensus conference.

SUMMARY: With rapid advances in neuroimaging technology, there is growing concern over potential misuse of neuroradiologic imaging data in legal matters. On December 7 and 8, 2012, a multidisciplinary consensus conference, Use and Abuse of Neuroimaging in the Courtroom, was held at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. Through this interactive forum, a highly select group of experts-including neuroradiologists, neurologists, forensic psychiatrists, neuropsychologists, neuroscientists, legal scholars, imaging statisticians, judges, practicing attorneys, and neuroethicists-discussed the complex issues involved in the use of neuroimaging data entered into legal evidence and for associated expert testimony. The specific contexts of criminal cases, child abuse, and head trauma were especially considered. The purpose of the conference was to inform the development of guidelines on expert testimony for the American Society of Neuroradiology and to provide principles for courts on the ethical use of neuroimaging data as evidence. This report summarizes the conference and resulting recommendations.

Conflict of interest in neuroradiology.

A conflict of interest occurs when an outside interest influences professional decisions regarding patient care, education, or research. It is important to recognize conflicts of interest and to report significant financial interests to the appropriate institutional official. When a significant financial interest conflicts with human subjects research, the investigator is typically prohibited from participating in the research. If the conflict does not affect human subjects research, in some instances a conflict of interest management plan can be developed that allows continued participation in the research.

Interventional neuroradiology: the role of experimental models in scientific progress.

SUMMARY: The ultimate methodology necessary to adopt a treatment as generally beneficial is the randomized controlled trial, a method designed by and for clinicians to maximize the care of their patients in the presence of uncertainty. Some selection is however necessary to limit trials to more promising and less risky endeavors. Experimental models are the privileged answer to the problem of finding scientific evidence while refraining from harming patients in the course of this pursuit. They allow a step by step assessment, from simple but artificial settings to more complex and realistic animal models. But the use of animal models can only be justified if the community can be convinced that alternatives have been considered but are invalid, when the project is scientifically sound and methodologically irreproachable. As neurointerventional methods develop and gain wider clinical applications, progress should proceed in an orderly fashion, within limits set by prudence and human values, from the less risky, costly, time consuming methods, to the more definite, pragmatic, labor intensive but inescapable clinical trials. Each step is essential and the sequence cannot be violated without risks of errors that eventually translate into clinical morbidity.