A recent episode of “The Kardashians” has sparked a wave of discussion after revealing that Kim Kardashian underwent a brain scan that showed “holes” associated with “low activity.” While this revelation might sound alarming, experts are questioning the reliability and commercialization of the technology used in her diagnosis.
Kim’s doctor pointed out these “holes” during a discussion about her recent brain scan, suggesting they were linked to low activity in her brain. However, the scientific community remains skeptical about the technology’s accuracy and its growing use in celebrity circles.
The Technology Behind the Scan
The brain scan in question was a single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) scan. This imaging technique involves injecting radioactive chemicals into the bloodstream and using a special camera to create 3D images of the brain. Developed in 1976 and first applied to brain imaging in 1990, SPECT scans are primarily used to track and measure blood flow in organs.
While SPECT has legitimate clinical applications, particularly in diagnosing and treating conditions affecting the brain, heart, and bones, its use outside these contexts remains controversial. Critics argue that the evidence supporting SPECT as a diagnostic tool for various conditions is insufficient.
Celebrity Influence and Commercialization
The clinic featured in “The Kardashians” episode offers SPECT scans to its high-profile clients, including the Kardashian-Jenner family. These scans have gained popularity due to their visually appealing pastel colors and the claims that they can diagnose a wide range of conditions, from stress and Alzheimer’s to ADHD and even marital problems.
However, many doctors and scientists criticize these claims as scientifically unfounded. The scans may show changes in blood flow, but these changes can be common across different conditions and influenced by factors such as time of day and a person’s restfulness.
Expert Opinions on SPECT Scans
In Kim’s case, her doctor attributed the reduced blood flow observed in the frontal lobes of her brain to chronic stress, describing it as “low activity.” Yet, there is no scientific evidence linking such changes in blood flow to stress or specific functional outcomes. Experts emphasize that no single imaging technique can accurately link brain function changes to symptoms or outcomes for an individual.
“There is no scientific evidence to link these changes in blood flow to stress or functional outcomes,” says Sarah Hellewell, Senior Research Fellow at The Perron Institute for Neurological and Translational Science.
Financial and Health Implications
Another concern is the financial burden of these scans. Without a defined clinical reason, people are injected with radioactive materials, and the scans are not recognized as a medical necessity. Patients often pay upwards of $3,000 for a SPECT scan, with additional costs for recommended dietary supplements based on the scan’s findings.
For healthy individuals, such scans are often described as “opportunistic,” potentially identifying issues in asymptomatic people but also exploiting health anxieties and leading to unnecessary healthcare use.
Should You Consider a SPECT Scan?
While imaging tools like SPECT and MRI are valuable for diagnosing various conditions, there is no medical need for healthy individuals to undergo such scans without symptoms. The allure of following celebrity trends can be tempting, but experts advise that the best medical care is grounded in solid scientific evidence and provided by professionals using best-practice tools based on extensive research.
As the debate around SPECT scans continues, it is crucial to approach such technologies with a critical eye and prioritize evidence-based medical practices.
