Incidental findings on brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in adults: a review of imaging spectrum, clinical significance, and management

Prevalence and Clinical Implications of Incidental Aortic Arch Abnormalities on Contrast-Enhanced Neck MR Angiography: A Single-Center Experience

Background and Objectives: Vascular abnormalities within the anatomical coverage are frequently encountered in imaging studies. The aortic arch is often overlooked as an anatomical blind spot, especially in neck magnetic resonance (MR) angiography. This study investigated the prevalence of incidental aortic arch abnormalities. We also estimated the potential clinical significance of aortic arch abnormalities as blind spots detected on contrast-enhanced neck MR angiography. Materials and Methods: Between February 2016 and March 2023, 348 patients were identified based on contrast-enhanced neck MR angiography reports. The clinical and radiological characteristics of the patients and the presence of additional imaging studies were assessed. The aortic arch abnormalities and coexisting non-aortic arterial abnormalities were classified into two categories according to their clinical significance. We performed the χ² test and Fisher's exact test for group comparisons. Results: Of the 348 study patients, only 29 (8.3%) had clinically significant incidental aortic arch abnormalities. Among these 348 patients, 250 (71.8%) and 136 (39%) had intracranial and extracranial abnormalities, respectively; the clinically significant intracranial abnormalities in the two groups were 130 lesions (52.0%) and 38 lesions (27.9%), respectively. In addition, there was a significantly higher tendency of clinically significant aortic arch abnormalities (13/29, 44.8%) in the patients who had clinically significant coexisting non-aortic arterial abnormalities than in the other group (87/319, 27.3%) (p = 0.044). The patient groups with clinically significant intracranial or extracranial arterial abnormalities had higher rates of clinically significant aortic abnormalities (31.0% and 17.2%), but there was no statistical significance (p = 0.136). Conclusions: The incidence of clinically significant aortic arch abnormalities was 8.3% on neck MR angiography, with a significant association between aortic and coexisting non-aortic arterial abnormalities. The findings of this study could improve the understanding of incidental aortic arch lesions on neck MR angiography, which is of crucial clinical importance for radiologists to achieve accurate diagnoses and management.

The Misguided Veneration of Averageness in Clinical Neuroscience: A Call to Value Diversity over Typicality

Research and practice in clinical neurosciences often involve cognitive assessment. However, this has traditionally used a nomothetic approach, comparing the performance of patients to normative samples. This method of defining abnormality places the average test performance of neurologically healthy individuals at its center. However, evidence suggests that neurological 'abnormalities' are very common, as is the diversity of cognitive abilities. The veneration of central tendency in cognitive assessment, i.e., equating typicality with healthy or ideal, is, I argue, misguided on neurodiversity, bio-evolutionary, and cognitive neuroscientific grounds. Furthermore, the use of average performance as an anchor point for normal performance is unreliable in practice and frequently leads to the mischaracterization of cognitive impairments. Examples are explored of how individuals who are already vulnerable for socioeconomic reasons can easily be over-pathologized. At a practical level, by valuing diversity rather than typicality, cognitive assessments can become more idiographic and focused on change at the level of the individual. The use of existing methods that approach cognitive assessment ideographically is briefly discussed, including premorbid estimation methods and informant reports. Moving the focus away from averageness to valuing diversity for both clinical cognitive assessments and inclusion of diverse groups in research is, I argue, a more just and effective way forward for clinical neurosciences.