Home » Posts tagged 'GBCAs'
Tag Archives: GBCAs
Ten Years Later: Gadolinium Toxicity – A Disease of Degrees
Editorial by Sharon Williams
November 12, 2025
In early 2015, I opened a post with the following question: Why does a Gadolinium Toxicity diagnosis have to be full-blown NSF (Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis) or nothing at all? I went on to say that we believe Gadolinium Toxicity is a “disease of degrees”, which can manifest itself in many ways depending on how much gadolinium someone retains. And it can occur in patients with normal renal function.
Here we are ten years later, in 2025, and our belief about retained gadolinium causing a disease with varying degrees of severity is stronger than ever. That belief is based on the results of the Patient Survey that Hubbs Grimm and I conducted last year along with patient advocates Sarah Ratnam and Catriona Walsh. We recently released our first paper that focuses on the symptoms reported by 316 survey participants after MRIs with a gadolinium-based contrast agent (GBCA). The patients had normal and near normal renal function at the time of their MRIs. 185 of the participants have one or more test results that confirm they retained gadolinium for more than 30 days and for as long as 22 years after contrast administration, including 14 years in pelvic bone, and 13 years in sigmoid colon tissue.
The similarities between the symptom reporting patterns of the survey participants closely mirror those published about the clinical presentation of early-phase NSF as described by Marckmann & Skov (2009). Based on what Marckmann wrote about NSF, it seems that NSF itself had varying degrees of severity. Marckmann (2009 & 2011) wrote that there were significant individual differences in the clinical course of NSF, even in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, which seems to indicate that retained gadolinium could trigger a range of symptoms, with a varied clinical outcome in all patient populations.
The variability of the symptoms shows that even in severely renally impaired patients, gadolinium-induced NSF did not cause the exact same set of symptoms or level of severity.
Is NSF itself the “disease of degrees”? Do all patients affected by gadolinium manifest NSF to varying extents, but without the “N” or nephrogenic component? The many similarities between the early clinical picture of NSF and the symptoms reported by participants in our Patient Survey suggest that they do.
Rather than a new or separate disease entity for patients with normal renal function, such as Gadolinium Deposition Disease (GDD) as described by Semelka & Ramalho (2023), our survey findings suggest that GDD and NSF may reflect different points along a continuum of gadolinium-induced toxicity. In other words, what we are observing may be one gadolinium-induced disease process manifesting with varying degrees of severity, which is how Marckmann described NSF in his Severity Grading in 2009.
Gadolinium has the Potential to Harm All Patients (more…)
Could Artificial Intelligence replace Gadolinium-based Contrast Agents?
A new U.S. patent awarded to Imaging Biometrics for its IB Zero G artificial intelligence (AI) software might do what the FDA and Radiology Community have been reluctant to do – restrict or eliminate the administration of gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) for MRIs.
As recently reported by AppliedRadiology and HealthImaging, the fully automated AI technology, called IB Zero G, accepts non-contrast medical images as inputs and produces a synthetic image series that mimics contrast-enhanced images of comparable diagnostic quality. The IB Zero G software is currently in the investigational stage, but according to the company, is compatible with all MRI scanner platforms.
AI could eliminate the risk of gadolinium retention.
The FDA has acknowledged that gadolinium can remain in the body for months and years after contrast administration in all patients who have MRIs with a GBCA. However, no one has acknowledged that long-term retention of this toxic metal causes harm in people with normal renal function, even though retained gadolinium has been found to cause a potentially fatal, systemic disease process known as Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis (NSF) in people with end-stage renal disease.
I believe the key to avoiding harm from gadolinium is to avoid retaining any amount of it.
If IB Zero G can provide high quality diagnostic images without the use of GBCAs, it could protect patients from the long-term effects of retained gadolinium. As Imaging Biometrics CEO Michael Schmainda said, “IB Zero G has the potential to significantly disrupt routine clinical workflows on a global basis and help millions of patients receive higher quality and safer MR exams.”
Hopefully, it will not take long for the IB Zero G AI technology to move from the investigational stage into routine use for what would have been GBCA-enhanced MRIs.
Sharon Williams
_____________________________
References –
AppliedRadiology.com. June 24, 2021. https://appliedradiology.com/articles/patent-awarded-to-imaging-biometrics-for-no-contrast-mri-exams
HealthImaging.com. June 25, 2021. https://www.healthimaging.com/topics/ai-emerging-technologies/gadolinium-contrast-ai-software-us-patent
Food & Drug Administration. (2017). FDA Drug Safety Communication, December 19, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-drug-safety-communication-fda-warns-gadolinium-based-contrast-agents-gbcas-are-retained-body
Doctors with self-diagnosed Gadolinium Deposition Disease
A recent study by Semelka and Ramalho allowed 9 physicians with self-diagnosed gadolinium deposition disease (GDD) to report their own experience. The physicians included 7 females and 2 males. Symptoms developed after a single injection in one doctor and after multiple injections in the other eight. The precipitating agent included both linear and macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs). Eight of the physicians reported that they were compelled to change their practice of medicine.
The study, Physicians with self-diagnosed gadolinium deposition disease: a case series, found that in various physicians, GDD showed common features and had a substantial impact on daily activity. The most consistent symptoms reported were a burning sensation, brain fog, fatigue, distal paresthesia, fasciculations, headache, and insomnia.
My thoughts –
The symptoms described by the physicians are similar to those reported in our 2014 Symptom Survey, and those symptoms continue to be reported by newly affected people who join our Gadolinium Toxicity support group or one of the other online patient groups.
If we accept that these self-reported cases of gadolinium deposition disease were induced by the toxic effects of retained gadolinium, which I believe that they were, then it seems that the symptoms reported by patients after their MRIs with a GBCA must also be recognized as being gadolinium-induced.
As Drs. Semelka and Ramalho said in their conclusion, “physicians are educated reporters on disease, so their personal descriptions should spark interest in further research.” I agree.
Interestingly, Hubbs Grimm and I concluded our 2014 Symptom Survey paper by saying, “the results of the Symptom Survey and Gadolinium Retention Update presented here should stimulate further professional investigation into gadolinium retention in all patient populations including those with normal renal function.” Here we are 7 years later in 2021 and researchers still have not connected patient symptoms after contrast-enhanced MRIs to the known toxic effects of gadolinium. Why is that?
Sharon Williams
_________________________________
References:
Semelka, R., & Ramalho, M. (2021). Physicians with self-diagnosed gadolinium deposition disease: a case series. Radiol Bras. Retrieved from http://www.rb.org.br/detalhe_aop.asp?id=3328
Williams, S., & Grimm, H. (2014). Gadolinium Toxicity: A Survey of the Chronic Effects of Retained Gadolinium from Contrast MRIs. Retrieved from https://gadoliniumtoxicity.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/gd-symptom-survey.pdf
Can Symptoms of Gadolinium Toxicity be explained?
On August 25, 2020, I wrote an open letter to the FDA, Radiologists and Researchers about the symptoms of gadolinium toxicity that have not, as yet, been recognized by the FDA or medical community as being caused by retained gadolinium (Gd). I believe part of the problem stems from the fact that histopathological examination has not found any evidence that deposited Gd caused “harm” in the brain. However, the lack of physical evidence and abnormal blood tests does not mean that harmful events have not taken place in patients’ bodies. What if gadolinium affected the function of cells, especially nerve cells, and triggered a cascade of adverse events, experienced by the person as decidedly abnormal and unpleasant sensations? Would that be easily detected on histological examination of tissue, or blood tests?
In my letter, I reviewed facts that we already know about Gd from the literature, in terms of both its retention after contrast administration and its effects at a cellular level. Given that Gd has been shown to induce mitochondrial toxicity, interfere with ion channels, create neuronal hyperexcitability, and affect inflammatory processes, could Gd be affecting not only the part of the brain that controls many processes, but also peripheral and autonomic nerve endings, as well as dorsal root ganglia, to produce the many and varied symptoms that patients are experiencing?
We know that retention of Gd has been demonstrated in humans, that unexplained symptoms are occurring, and the neuronal effects of Gd have been demonstrated experimentally. Could it just be that the connection has not yet been made, and when considered together, all these facts might explain how patients’ symptoms are being caused by retained Gd from gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs)?
I believe many symptoms of gadolinium toxicity can be explained by Gd-induced small fiber neuropathy (SFN) and long-standing neuropathic pain. Interestingly, as you will see in my letter, many symptoms of SFN are the same as the clinical symptoms associated with nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF), which makes sense to me since the cause is the same.
Symptoms of Gadolinium Toxicity: Can their cause be explained? is available for download as a PDF and it will be posted in Our Research in the Research section of our website. The reason for making my letter available to the public now is to inform doctors, researchers, and affected patients about gadolinium-related facts that do not seem to be widely recognized. My hope is that more research will be conducted that involves evaluation and testing of patients who have retained gadolinium and are experiencing SFN-like symptoms, which, until now, have been unexplained and perplexing to clinicians who are not familiar with the potential toxic effects of retained gadolinium.
Sharon Williams
Gadolinium Toxicity 