A recent episode of “The Kardashians” has sparked widespread discussion after Kim Kardashian’s brain scan revealed “holes” that her doctor attributed to “low activity.” While the revelation initially appeared concerning, experts are questioning the technology used and its commercialization.
The scan in question was a single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), a type of imaging that involves injecting radioactive chemicals into the bloodstream to create 3D images of organs, including the brain. This technique, developed in 1976 and first applied to the brain in 1990, is used to track and measure blood flow in organs. However, its efficacy outside limited clinical circumstances is debated.
Understanding SPECT and Its Applications
SPECT scans can diagnose and guide treatment for conditions affecting the brain, heart, and bones by tracking blood flow. Despite its clinical applications, the evidence supporting SPECT’s use as a diagnostic tool for individuals is limited. The technology’s appeal has grown, particularly among celebrities and private clinics, due to its visually appealing images and broad claims.
The clinic featured in the Kardashian episode offers SPECT scans to clients, including the Kardashian-Jenners. These scans are marketed as diagnostic tools for various conditions, such as stress, Alzheimer’s, ADHD, brain injury, eating disorders, and even marital problems. However, many doctors and scientists criticize these claims as scientifically unfounded.
“SPECT images have mass appeal due to their aesthetically pleasing pastel colors, widespread promotion on social media, and claims that these scans can diagnose any number of conditions.”
The Science Behind the “Holes”
The “holes” or “low activity” areas seen in Kim Kardashian’s scan were linked to reduced blood flow, which her doctor attributed to chronic stress affecting her frontal lobes. Yet, there is no scientific evidence to connect these blood flow changes to stress or functional outcomes. Blood flow variations can occur due to numerous factors, including the time of day and a person’s rest level.
Experts emphasize that no single imaging technique can reliably link changes in brain function to symptoms or outcomes for an individual. The use of SPECT scans as a diagnostic tool for healthy individuals without symptoms is particularly controversial.
The Financial and Health Implications
One significant concern is the cost and health implications of SPECT scans. Patients are injected with radioactive materials without a defined clinical reason, and the scans are not recognized as a medical necessity. Consequently, individuals pay upwards of $3,000 for a SPECT scan, with additional costs for recommended dietary supplements.
“Patients may undergo treatment or be recommended to take particular supplements based on a diagnosis from SPECT that is scientifically unfounded.”
Doctors caution that such scans for healthy people are often described as “opportunistic.” While they may find something in asymptomatic individuals, they also capitalize on health anxieties and can lead to unnecessary healthcare system use.
Expert Opinions and Looking Forward
Sarah Hellewell, a Senior Research Fellow at The Perron Institute for Neurological and Translational Science, advises caution. She emphasizes that the best medical care is based on solid scientific evidence and provided by experts using best-practice tools developed through decades of research.
As the debate over SPECT technology continues, individuals are encouraged to seek medical advice grounded in evidence rather than trends. While the allure of celebrity-endorsed diagnostics is strong, the importance of scientifically supported medical care cannot be overstated.
The conversation surrounding Kim Kardashian’s brain scan highlights broader issues within the healthcare industry, including the commercialization of medical technologies and the need for rigorous scientific validation. As these discussions progress, the focus remains on ensuring that patients receive safe, effective, and evidence-based care.
