Nuc

[Astrocyte]

Best neuro nuc programs: UCLA, MIR, Michigan, Hopkins, UW in terms of having a good CNS guy in the department and volume. This is in no particular order, depending on specific neuro interests.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[hans19]

Where would you go for nuc? UCLA vs. MIR vs. Hopkins. Why?

Fellowship or residency? what are your goals? PP or academic?

as far as rep hopkins >= MIR > UCLA

location wise UCLA >>hopkins> MIR

 

[Astrocyte]

Fellowship or residency? what are your goals? PP or academic?

as far as rep hopkins >= MIR > UCLA

location wise UCLA >>hopkins> MIR

Thanks for replying. I am interested in residency for neuro academic career.

I figured as much. Exactly my dilema about UCLA. Plus UCLA's basically run by residents from the get-go. One attending is supposed to oversee 4 sites and 4 residents each day (40-60 scans total). So looks like Hopkins is the logical choice then? Do you think UCLA grads have advantage in getting jobs in westcoast/california over Hopkin/MIR grads? Does high volume necessarily mean better training in nuc? I would think the learning curve kind of plateus quickly with nuc.

 

[f_w]

I would think the learning curve kind of plateus quickly with nuc.

Some people would say it plateaus after 1000hrs, others put that plateau at 700hrs

 

[hans19]

Thanks for replying. I am interested in residency for neuro academic career.

I think you'll get more responses in the nuclear medicine forum... Moving thread

 

[Astrocyte]

I think you'll get more responses in the nuclear medicine forum... Moving thread

I was hoping to get opinions from rad residents as well. Nuc section is pretty dead. That's why I started it in the rad thread. Thanks.

 

[hans19]

I was hoping to get opinions from rad residents as well. Nuc section is pretty dead. That's why I started it in the rad thread. Thanks.

The med students that frequent the rads forum won't be able to help you. Chances are most of the radiology residents don't know much about nucs residencies, either. The fact that you think you can get more responses from OUTSIDE the nucs community concerning nuclear medicine seems a little disconcerting. I think at least on the Nucs forum you may get help from other nucs residents that have posted in the past. If we don't get any bites, I'll be glad to move it back.

Here's my take: Maybe the nucs guys know better-- but general nucs jobs are relatively difficult to come by to begin with. To narrow your scope of practice to only neuro imaging within nuclear medicine is perhaps pigeonholing yourself into too specific a niche. It will be extremely hard for you to find a full time job.

The indications for brain pet, Diamox, metrozamide, brain death studies are relatively limited to begin with and are not studies performed routinely nor in great volumes. If you are interested in neurological imaging specifically, then radiology with a neuroradiology fellowship may be the way to go. You CAN find jobs as a full-time neuroimager as a radiologist. If its the functional aspect of nucs that interests you, functional imaging IS capable with current MRI technology. Furthermore brain CT and MRIs are a routine part of the daily practice of radiology. Moreover, with the advent of CT and MR fusion imaging I think knowledge of the cross sectional anatomy is much more difficult to learn and get comfortable with than how to calibrate SUVs and deciding whether an SUV is elevated or not. When MR-PET comes into prime time, the people with a pure nucs background will be at a severe disadvantage compared to someone from a radiology background with nuclear fellowship training.

 

[Astrocyte]

The med students that frequent the rads forum won't be able to help you. Chances are most of the radiology residents don't know much about nucs residencies, either. The fact that you think you can get more responses from OUTSIDE the nucs community concerning nuclear medicine seems a little disconcerting. I think at least on the Nucs forum you may get help from other nucs residents that have posted in the past. If we don't get any bites, I'll be glad to move it back.

Here's my take: Maybe the nucs guys know better-- but general nucs jobs are relatively difficult to come by to begin with. To narrow your scope of practice to only neuro imaging within nuclear medicine is perhaps pigeonholing yourself into too specific a niche. It will be extremely hard for you to find a full time job.

The indications for brain pet, Diamox, metrozamide, brain death studies are relatively limited to begin with and are not studies performed routinely nor in great volumes. If you are interested in neurological imaging specifically, then radiology with a neuroradiology fellowship may be the way to go. You CAN find jobs as a full-time neuroimager as a radiologist. If its the functional aspect of nucs that interests you, functional imaging IS capable with current MRI technology. Furthermore brain CT and MRIs are a routine part of the daily practice of radiology. Moreover, with the advent of CT and MR fusion imaging I think knowledge of the cross sectional anatomy is much more difficult to learn and get comfortable with than how to calibrate SUVs and deciding whether an SUV is elevated or not. When MR-PET comes into prime time, the people with a pure nucs background will be at a severe disadvantage compared to someone from a radiology background with nuclear fellowship training.

I think your point is well taken, from a job market perspective. It is clear that having radiology background is a safer bet. However, as a neurologist who is interested in fucntional imaging, my primary interest is 1) using technology to answer clinical or neuroscience questions, and 2) advancing the technology. As such, I will be learning fMRI, ASL MRI, DTI MRI, MEG, on an as-needed basis. With training in two specialties, I don't think I will have much trouble finding an academic job. With enough secondary interest in oncologic imaging, I might even be able to find a nuc private practice job, as PET/CT continues to grow.
It seems to me that the 'turf battle' between radiologists and clinicians will continue for some time. As tele-rad becomes prevalent, maybe one day we will have a certification and distribution system, where clinicians and radiologists alike can get certified in new technology, and read only what they are qualified to read. I think the pie will be big enough for everyone, including clinician readers, if the overseeing organizations can get together to control the number of trainees admitted via the two routes.