This article's numbers are (not) surprisingly useless. So, for 1.8% of people in one study who did MRI they found cancer. Is it a lot? A few? I mean, how many people do these MRIs, out of general population? Are those high-risk people or just random people (or, maybe, only rich people?) and what their base rate incidence of cancer? What is base rate incidence of cancer in general population and how often those cancers are discovered by non-MRI tests?

If I had to decide whether or not MRI is worth it for cancer detection - this is what the article is supposed to be about? - those are the questions I'd ask. None of them are addressed in the article. I think if we dropped everything in it but the last sentence, it would lose nothing of substance:

> No matter what you decide for yourself, consult a licensed medical professional for advice.