The study was partially sponsored by the manufacturer of the ultra low field MRI and some of the physicians were investors in that company. This alone does not mean that the study is invalid.

The study you cite DOES NOT show that the low field MRI is nearly as effective as high field MRI in diagnosing stroke. Most importantly, the patients imaged in the ULF scanner had already been diagnosed with a stroke before imaging a second time with the low field machine. A more rigorous study would use a double-blind process.

Secondly, some of the patients were previously imaged using CT, not MRI. This is the very definition of an apples to oranges comparison.

The MRI scanner in question has limited resolution compared with virtually every MRI in the USA, even 20-year old scanners. It cannot image very small tumors or bleeds.

Finally, the study states that about 80% of the strokes were correctly identified. A more accurate headline would be 'ULF MRI leads to correct diagnosis 80% of the time' or 'ULF MRI Better Than Nothing'. More critically but more accurately, 'ULF MRI is a Poor Alternative if You Have Another Choice'.

A more meaningful study would compare low-cost CT scans to the use of this innovative and clever scanner, because they are more readily available and less costly.

This study has anecdotal value.