Don't you think it's a habit of focusing on what has been broadly said instead of what has been precisely shown? Could you please compare what has been said on Charcot's 1868 paper on MS (SEP) with what is actually written there?
What about my attempt at showing this in the link given below?
https://medium.com/@franzschelling/identifying-ms-on-mr-images-a-matter-of-clinical-agreements-or-of-morphological-expertise-e35959cd2700#.om09k0vsi
Franz Schelling
The custom of relating specific post mortem (now MRI) findings - seen exclusively in MS! - into clinically more easily 'digestible' terms (inflammation, degeneration, atrophy, myelin or white matter disease) is the most pervasive problem of MS research.
0 votes
0 thanks
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers
More Franz Schelling's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions